Russian Volunteer Fleet v. United States
Headline: Court allows a Russian corporation to sue the United States for compensation after government seized shipbuilding contracts, reversing a dismissal and ruling recognition of Russia’s regime cannot block recovery.
Holding:
- Allows foreign owners to sue the U.S. for compensation despite nonrecognition of their country's regime.
- Affirms that property owners are protected by the Fifth Amendment despite foreign political changes.
- Reverses dismissal and lets an unpaid compensation claim proceed in the Court of Claims.
Summary
Background
A corporation organized under the laws of Russia says it bought contracts to build two vessels and that the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation seized those contracts and the ships in 1917 under a wartime law and presidential order. The petitioner filed a claim in 1919, the Shipping Board fixed a sum it found due, and the petitioner sued for what it says is full compensation. The Court of Claims dismissed the suit, relying on a statute that lets aliens sue here only if their home government allows U.S. citizens to sue in its courts; the dismissal rested on the Government’s lack of recognition of later Russian regimes.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the 1917 law that authorizes payment and a suit for unpaid compensation should be read to require U.S. recognition of the foreign government before an alien owner can recover. The Court said no. It emphasized that when the United States takes property it must pay just compensation under the Constitution, and Congress provided a right to sue to enforce that payment. The Court refused to imply a condition that would deny or indefinitely delay compensation because of recognition questions. It held the alien owner is protected by the Fifth Amendment and may pursue the statutory claim. The judgment dismissing the petition was reversed.
Real world impact
The decision permits foreign owners whose property or contracts were requisitioned by the United States under the 1917 law to press statutory claims for just compensation even if the Government does not recognize a later regime in the owner’s country. It reinforces that constitutional protection for compensation is not made dependent on foreign political changes.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?