Why do many U.S. courts reject renvoi in conflict-of-laws cases?

In the context of conflict of laws, the principle of renvoi—a French term meaning "send back"—arises when a forum court’s choice-of-law rule refers to a foreign law, and that foreign law’s own conflict rules refer the matter back to the law of the forum or to a third country.1

While some legal systems accept renvoi, many U.S. courts reject it. This rejection stems from the fundamental question of whether a forum’s reference to foreign law is intended to include that jurisdiction's conflict-of-laws rules or merely its internal, substantive law. By excluding renvoi, American courts generally avoid the circularity or complexity that can occur when multiple legal systems attempt to defer to one another’s choice-of-law rules. Furthermore, many modern U.S. methodologies prioritize the application of the lex fori (the law of the forum), which simplifies the process by favoring the court's own domestic law in cases involving foreign elements.12