Republic of Hungary v. Simon
The Court will consider three questions regarding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s (FSIA) expropriation exception. The plaintiffs, who are Holocaust survivors, allege that Hungary expropriated their property, commingled the proceeds with other government funds, and ultimately used those funds to pay holders of government bonds in the United States.
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp.
Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp.
The question in these consolidated cases is whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a foreign state under the FSIA requires satisfaction of the minimum-contacts test.
Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos
Mexico sued Smith & Wesson and other gun manufacturers in federal district court of the District of Massachusetts, alleging that defendants design, market, and sell guns in ways they know will arm Mexican drug cartels. The Court will consider whether Mexico has sufficiently alleged facts that would satisfy the "predicate exception" to the immunity to arms manufacturers otherwise provided by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman
Victims (and the family members of victims) of terrorist attacks allege that BLOM Bank aided and abetted the terrorist attacks by providing banking services to three customers alleged to be affiliates of Hamas. After their complaint was dismissed with prejudice, they sought to vacate the judgment so that they could amend their complaint. The question presented is whether Rule 60(b)(6)’s requirement of extraordinary circumstances to reopen a final judgment applies to a request to vacate so that an amended complaint can be filed.
Fuld v. Palestinian Liberation Organization
The petition asks whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019 (PSJVTA) violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause by declaring that the PLO has consented to personal jurisdiction based on specified conduct.
Shell PLC v. Honolulu
The Hawaii Supreme Court allowed state tort law claims relating to climate change to move forward against Shell and other major oil companies. (This is one of many climate change cases brought by state and local governments against oil companies in recent years.) Shell argues that Hawaii tort law is preempted by federal law because climate change is a global issue. In June, the Supreme Court called for the views of the Solicitor General.
Binance v. Anderson
Binance argues that the Second Circuit misapplied Morrison v. National Australia Bank (2010), which held that § 10(b) applies only to securities transactions in the United States.
Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC (2024)
The Court held that choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable as a matter of federal maritime law. It further held that while there are narrow exceptions to this rule, state public policy is not one of them.
Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International Inc. (2023)
The Court held that the Lanham Act (the federal trademark statute) does not apply extraterritorially and that a domestic application of the statute requires use of the trademark in domestic commerce. Regarding the presumption against extraterritoriality more broadly, the majority emphasized that conduct related to a non-extraterritorial statute's focus must occur in the United States, even if the focus itself is not about conduct.
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway (2023)
The Court held that Pennsylvania's registration statute, which requires non-Pennsylvania companies registering to do business within the state to accept general personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania courts, does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision provides states with an option for establishing broader personal jurisdiction over foreign businesses.
Yegiazaryan v. Smagin (2023)
The Court held that racketeering activity to avoid paying a U.S. judgment confirming a foreign arbitration award against a U.S. resident constituted a domestic injury for purposes of RICO's private right of action, even though the judgment creditor lives in Russia and both parties are Russian nationals. The Court declined to state a bright-line rule for locating injuries to intangible property, instead emphasizing the need for a "contextual approach."
Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh (2023)
The Court held that the plaintiffs' allegations that a social media site had aided and abetted ISIS in terrorist attacks abroad failed to state a claim under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.
Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States (2023)
The Court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) does not apply to criminal cases and remanded for consideration of the applicability of common law immunities.
ZF Automotive v. Luxshare (2022)
The Supreme Court held that, although 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) permits a district court to order discovery "for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal,” only a governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative body may qualify as such a tribunal, and the arbitration panels in these cases were not such adjudicative bodies.
Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation (2022)
The Supreme Court held that In a suit raising non-federal claims against a foreign state or instrumentality under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a court should determine the substantive law by using the same choice-of-law rule applicable in a similar suit against a private party.