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 ReadingCVSG in Chabad v. Russian Federation: Another Question of Foreign State Immunity
On June 2, 2025, the Supreme Court called for the views of the Solicitor General (“CVSG”) in Chabad v. Russian Federation. In Chabad’s petition for certiorari, the question presented is whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)’s expropriation exception applies to a foreign state if the expropriated property—or property exchanged for it— is located outside…
Continue ReadingServing Process on Russia Through “Diplomatic Channels” Under the FSIA
A party suing a foreign state in federal or state court must comply with the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The FSIA governs not only when a foreign state is immune from suit and from execution, but also how a foreign state must be served with process. Section 1608(a) provides four possible methods of service…
Continue ReadingThree Questions for the Ninth Circuit in Antrix
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. represents a minimalist response to a narrow question embedded in a procedural labyrinth. As Ingrid Brunk noted on TLB, the Court resolved no significant issue, but rather corrected an obvious mistake by the Ninth Circuit. However, the case bristles with potential. Depending…
Continue Reading