The Act of State Doctrine

Case: Underhill v. Hernandez (1897)

168 U.S. 250

Facts: In an 1892 revolution, General Hernandez deposed the existing Venezuelan

government and took control of Ciudad Bolivar, where Pl Underhill, an American
citizen, lived and ran a waterworks system for the city. Underhill applied to
Hernandez, requesting a passport to leave the city. Hernandez initially refused,
but ultimately granted it. When Underhill finally got back to the U.S. he brought
an action to recover damages caused by his detention in Venezuela, for alleged
confinement to his own house, and for certain alleged assaults and affronts by
soldiers of Hernandez's army.

Holding/Reasoning: Court determined that Hernandez had acted in his official

capacity as a military commander so his actions were those of the Venezuelan
government. The Court therefore refused to hear the claim against based on the Act
of State Doctrine. The Court reasoned, "Every sovereign state is bound to respect
the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts of one country
will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another, done within its
own territory." Also, it didn’t matter that it was a revolution, and that the
commander may not have had recognition at the time as the leader from outside the
territory. What matters is that he succeeded and is now recognized as such.

Notes
• Court will not let case proceed in U.S. why?
○ Use the int'l reasoning - we should judge another country's actions if
they have justification for it within their own laws.
○ Govt actor, and it occurred in Venezuela. Therefore we should apply their
law. Why apply U.S. law?
• U.S. can make a jurisdictional claim b/c victim is American, but b/c of act of
state doctrine, we should leave it up to Venezuela to deal with.