From Serra v. Lappin, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 7324 (9th Cir. 2010):
The purpose of the Charming Betsy canon is to avoid the negative “foreign policy implications” of violating the law of nations, and Plaintiffs have offered no reason to believe that [the low wages they were paid for working while in prison] are likely to embroil the nation in a foreign policy dispute. That the courts should ever invoke the Charming Betsy canon in favor of United States citizens is doubtful, because a violation of the law of nations as against a United States citizen is unlikely to bring about the international discord that the canon guards against. In The Charming Betsy, the status of the ship’s owner as a Danish subject, and thus a neutral in the conflict between the United States and France, was critical to the Court’s conclusion that the Non-Intercourse Act of 1800 should not be interpreted to permit the seizure and sale of his ship. We have never employed the Charming Betsy canon in a case involving exclusively domestic parties and domestic acts, nor has the Supreme Court. As a general rule, domestic parties must rely on domestic law when they sue each other over domestic injuries in federal court. We need not consider whether the statutory and regulatory regime of federal inmate compensation conflicts with the law of nations because Plaintiffs, as United States citizens and residents, have not demonstrated that their low wages have any possible ramifications for this country’s foreign affairs.
(Citations and internal quotation marks removed)
