Customary international law provides immunity to states from the jurisdiction of foreign national courts. The immunity extends to state agencies and to state-owned property, protecting them from adjudicatory jurisdiction and from enforcement measures. Foreign sovereign immunity has important exceptions, including for waiver, for some conduct or property related to commercial activity, and for some torts committed on the territory of the forum state. In the United States, all aspects of foreign sovereign immunity for cases in state or federal court are governed by a federal statute, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
A Primer on Foreign Sovereign Immunity
The immunity of states from the jurisdiction of foreign domestic courts is a long-standing and mostly uncontroversial principle of customary international law. The International Court of Justice has described foreign sovereign immunity as a procedural doctrine of international law, one that “derives from the principle of sovereign equality of the States.” As a practical matter,…
Continue ReadingSecond Circuit Expands Scope of Anti-Terrorism Act Suits Against Foreign States
On February 4, 2025, in Schansman v. Sberbank, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that foreign states and their agencies and instrumentalities may be sued under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) for acts of international terrorism, provided that one of the enumerated exceptions to sovereign immunity in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act…
Continue ReadingDeciding the “Real Party in Interest” in FSIA Litigation
The Second Circuit has categorized a recent case against an individual Egyptian official as a case against the Egyptian government as the “real party in interest.” The case, Hussein v. Maait, was then dismissed because Egypt was immune from suit. The court of appeals did a nice job laying out and applying the relevant “real…
Continue ReadingThe $24 Billion Judgment Against China in Missouri’s COVID Suit
On March 7, 2025, Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. (Eastern District of Missouri) entered a default judgment for more than $24 billion against the People’s Republic of China and eight other Chinese defendants for hoarding personal protective equipment (PPE) during the early days of the COVID pandemic in violation of federal and state antitrust laws….
Continue Reading