Juan Carlos Emden, et al. v. The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston

The act of state doctrine has been applied by the lower courts to bar United States courts from declaring invalid the official acts of a foreign sovereign performed within its own territory. But if a court is only required to review the effects of a foreign sovereign’s act, but not the validity of the act, the act of state doctrine does not apply. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (“Rule 12(b)(6)”) allows a court to dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a plausible claim upon which relief may be granted. However, a complaint survives a motion to dismiss if it contains sufficient factual matter that, accepted as true, states a claim to relief that is facially plausible. In this case, the Fifth Circuit erred in affirming the trial court’s improper inferences in favor of Respondent, and against Petitioner. Specifically, the Fifth Circuit erroneously concluded that (1) a foreign sovereign made a determination about the ownership of a piece of art, even though the well-pleaded allegations asserted that the artwork was never in that foreign sovereign’s possession, and (2) the acts of a non-profit entity located within the jurisdictional limits of the foreign sovereign were “official acts” of the sovereign because the non-profit entity was sufficiently tied to the official foreign government , despite wellpleaded allegations to the contrary. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Fifth Circuit’s application of the act of state doctrine conflicts with well-established precedent that adjudicating the effects of a foreign sovereign’s acts is not a determination of the validity