Spectrum Stores Inc, Plaintiffs – Appellants V. Citgo Petroleum Corporation; Saudi Arabian Oil Company, Doing Business as Saudi Aramco; Defendants – Appellees.

Case Brief particular(a) Credit Citation SPECTRUM STORES INC, Plaintiffs Appellants v. CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION SAUDI ARABIAN petroleum COMPANY, doing business as Saudi Aramco Defendants Appellees. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 632 F. 3d 938 (2011) Facts Gasoline retailers accused the OPEC constituent nations of fix pricing of crude petroleum and refined petroleum products in the US. The appellants argued that the district court mischaracterized their complaint as alleging a conspiracy among sovereign nations to fix costs via production.They argued that the consolidated complaint alleges that moneymaking(prenominal) corporations, rather than governments, have taken over the production of crude oil. infra the act of state doctrine, the courts of one country will not puzzle in judgment on the acts of the government of an-other, done within its testify territory. The appellees have met their burden of demonstrating that negotiation of this suit woul d necessarily call into movement the acts of unconnected governments with respect to exploitation of their natural resources.The court barred the claims, and had to use up foreign policy of the political branches, which was not codified in a treaty that the court was merely asked to interpret. By judging the case, the panel would subscribe to reexamine critical foreign policy decisions Issue Are the OPEC member nations oil companies committing antitrust conspiracy by price fixing of crude oil and petroleum products in the US? ratiocination For the foregoing reasons, the United States court declined to sit in judgment of the acts of the foreign states that comprise OPEC and urged that the district courts judgment of dismissal be affirmed. Reason The antitrust conspiracy alleged by plaintiffs arises from the Sovereign Acts of outside(prenominal) States. To observe for plaintiffs on their antitrust claims would require a court to rule on the legality of the Foreign Sovereign Acts of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia. These cases do not trigger the territorial limitation or a possible technical activity exception of the Act of State Doctrine.