380 U.S. 386 (1947)
In 1944, respondent Katt, who was in the automobile business in Providence, Rhode Island, sold an automobile to petitioner Testa, who resided in Providence, for $1,100, which was $210 above the ceiling price.1 Petitioner Testa later filed suit against respondent in the State District Court in Providence seeking recovery under Section 205(e) of the Emergency Price Control Act.2 The district court awarded a judgment of treble damages and costs to the petitioner.3
On appeal to the State Superior Court, where the trial was de novo, the petitioner was awarded judgment for the amount of the overcharge plus attorney's fees.4 Pending appeal from this judgment, the Price Administrator was allowed to intervene.5 On further appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed the judgment, interpreting Section 205(e) as a penal statute in the international sense and holding that such an action could not be maintained in the courts of that state.6
The state supreme court rested its holding on its earlier decision in Robinson v. Norato.7 It reasoned that a state need not enforce the penal laws of a government foreign in the international sense, that Section 205(e) was penal in that sense, and that the United States was foreign to the state in the private international sense.8 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari because the question was of great importance and the holding was alleged to conflict with its previous decision in Mondou v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.9
Whether a state court may decline to entertain an action under Section 205(e) of the Emergency Price Control Act on the ground that the statute is penal in the international sense?10
Under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, federal laws made in pursuance of the Constitution are the supreme law of the land, binding on state judges, so that state courts may not refuse to enforce valid federal claims by treating the United States as foreign in the private international sense or by applying a policy against penal statutes.11
No. The Rhode Island Supreme Court interpreted Section 205(e) as a penal statute in the international sense.12 It held that an action for violation of Section 205(e) could not be maintained in the courts of that state.13 This decision rested on its earlier ruling in Robinson v. Norato.14 The court reasoned that a state need not enforce the penal laws of a government foreign in the international sense.15
The United States Supreme Court rejected this premise.16 The states of the Union constitute a nation.17 The Supremacy Clause makes federal law the supreme law of the land binding on state judges.18 Therefore, state courts may not refuse to enforce valid federal claims by treating the United States as foreign in the private international sense.19
A state court may not decline to entertain the action on the ground that the federal statute is penal in the international sense.20
Whether the Supremacy Clause requires state courts to enforce claims arising under valid federal statutes even when the state maintains a policy against enforcing similar penal statutes from other states or foreign countries?21
When a state court possesses jurisdiction adequate under local law to enforce claims of the same type arising under state law, the Supremacy Clause requires it to enforce federal claims as well.22 A state policy against enforcement of penal statutes from other jurisdictions supplies no valid excuse for refusing to entertain a federal action.23
Yes. Rhode Island courts enforce claims for double damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.24 They possess jurisdiction under state procedural statutes to adjudicate actions for overcharges.25 The facts establish that Testa and Katt are both residents of Providence County and the transaction occurred there.26
The federal statute expressly authorizes suit in any court of competent jurisdiction concurrently with state courts.27 Rhode Island's policy against enforcing what it deems penal statutes of foreign sovereigns therefore cannot excuse its courts from hearing this federal claim.28
The Supremacy Clause requires state courts to enforce the federal claims even when the state maintains a policy against enforcing similar penal statutes from other states or foreign countries.29