State Department Recognizes Head-of-State Immunity for MBS
Earlier today, the U.S. State Department recognized that Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman (MBS) is entitled to head-of-state immunity as Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia in a case brought by Democracy in the Arab World Now (DAWN) and the widow of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was brutally murdered by Saudi security agents at the Saudi…
Continue ReadingThrowback Thursday: United States v. Bowman
One hundred years ago, on November 13, 1922, Chief Justice William Howard Taft delivered the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Bowman, holding that a federal statute that made it a criminal offense to conspire to defraud a corporation owned by U.S. government applied extraterritorially to conduct on the high seas and in Brazil….
Continue ReadingRecapping Media Coverage of Mallory
Last Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., a personal jurisdiction case on review from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Robert Mallory, a Virginia resident employed in Virginia and Ohio, sued Norfolk Southern, then based and incorporated in Virginia, in Pennsylvania state court. The case asks the Supreme Court…
Continue ReadingLower Court Grapples with Supreme Court Ruling on Section 1782 and Investor-State Arbitration
Back in June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split on the applicability of Section 1782’s discovery tools for private commercial arbitration, and simultaneously addressed a related issue of Section 1782’s use in investor-state arbitration. The investor-state issue came to the Court in the case of AlixPartners LLP v. The Fund for Protection…
Continue ReadingCert Petition Raises Personal Jurisdiction Question in Context of the TVPRA
The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) explicitly authorizes extraterritorial application to six predicate offenses (18 U.S.C. § 1596) and creates a private right of action (18 U.S.C. § 1595). Assuming without deciding that § 1595’s civil remedy extends extraterritorially to the same extent as those six predicate offenses, the Ninth Circuit in Ratha v….
Continue ReadingConsent and Personal Jurisdiction: The Mallory Oral Argument
On Tuesday November 8, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway, a case that Reuters called “a sleeper case . . . [that] could be a nightmare for corporations.” The case involves a railway worker, Robert Mallory, a resident of Virginia, who had worked for Norfolk Southern for…
Continue ReadingServing Defendants in Ukrainian Territory Occupied by Russia
Both Russia and Ukraine are member states of the 1965 Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Service Convention (HSC)). After Russia occupied the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and its capital city, Sevastopol, and exercised control over certain areas of Ukraine (the “Occupied Areas”), Ukraine filed…
Continue ReadingOral Argument on Personal Jurisdiction Today
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument today in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway, a personal jurisdiction case in which the defendant “consented” to general jurisdiction in Pennsylvania based on a corporate registration statute. Although Mallory itself involves no transnational facts, the case could have important implications for foreign defendants. Pennsylvania’s registration and long-arm statutes,…
Continue ReadingSanctions and Terrorism
We have launched a new topic page on sanctions and terrorism. Sanctions are a critically important and highly controversial tool of foreign policy for many countries, especially the United States. Many sanctions do not result in litigation. Some do, however, and sanctions cases can produce very large judgments, especially in terrorism-related cases. Sanctions litigation also…
Continue ReadingSupreme Court to Decide Extraterritorial Reach of Trademark Statute
Today the Supreme Court granted review in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. to consider when the federal trademark statute, known as the Lanham Act, applies extraterritorially. In Steele v. Bulova Watch (1952), the Court held that the act applied extraterritorially to the infringement of a U.S. trademark in Mexico. But lower courts have developed different tests for implementing Steele, creating a…
Continue Reading