This Article provides an in-depth look at the act of state doctrine and its application in Republic of Ecuador v. Dassum. Specifically, the Author explains the doctrine and its underlying purposes, which includes avoiding friction between the executive branch of the United States and foreign nations, encouraging settlement of disputes outside of the judiciary, promoting predictability in transnational transactions, and avoiding potential interference with the executive branch’s interests in foreign relations. Further, the Author argues that the preservation of amicable diplomatic relations between the United States and foreign sovereign states requires that particular caution be taken with lawsuits filed within the jurisdiction of the United States against or by these sovereign states as the doctrine’s principle consideration is international comity. The Author explains that, despite these underlying principles, the Third District Court of Appeal in Miami, Florida, held that the doctrine precluded inquiry into the merits of the case, which determinatively found the defendants personally liable for the failure of what was previously one of Ecuador’s largest banks. The Author argues that, by erroneously applying the doctrine here, the Third District effectively denied the Isaias brothers due process and set a dangerous precedent.