Supreme Court - Current Term

Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh

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

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.

Pending Cases

Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC

The Court will consider whether, under federal admiralty law, a choice-of-law clause in a maritime contract can be rendered unenforceable if enforcement is contrary to the “strong public policy” of the state whose law is displaced. The Third Circuit held that The Bremen’s framework for determining whether a forum selection clause is enforceable should be extended to choice-of-law clauses.

Yegiazaryan v. Smagin

The Court will consider what constitutes a domestic injury to intangible property for purposes of RICO’s private right of action. The Ninth Circuit held, in conflict with the Seventh Circuit, that a U.S. judgment confirming a foreign arbitration award was intangible property in the United States, permitting a civil RICO claim for treble damages against the defendant for conspiring not to pay the judgment.

Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International Inc.

The Court will consider the extraterritorial reach of the Lanham Act, which provides civil remedies for the infringement of trademarks. In Steele v. Bulova Watch (1952), the Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act applies extraterritorially, but lower courts have splintered on the proper test for determining when the Lanham Act should apply to extraterritorial conduct.

Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway

The Court will consider whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from requiring a corporation to consent to general personal jurisdiction in order to do business in the state. Although the case does not involve transnational facts, it has significant implications for foreign corporations doing business in the United States.

Petitions to Watch

Ratha v. Phatthana Seafood Co., Ltd., cert. denied, 143 S.Ct. ___ (2023)

The petition asks the Court to clarify whether for an intentional tort, purposeful direction is required to establish specific personal jurisdiction or whether purposeful availment suffices. The question arises in the context of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act’s requirement that a non-U.S. defendant be “present” in the United States, which is typically ascertained by whether the defendant would be subject to personal jurisdiction for the claim in question.

NSO Group Technologies Limited v. WhatsApp Inc., cert. denied, 143 S.Ct. ___ (2023)

The petition asks the Court to consider whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act  (FSIA) occupies the field with respect to the immunity of entities, such that a corporation may not assert common-law immunities that are not found in the FSIA. The petitioner, an Israeli company that makes spyware, claims that it is entitled to common-law immunity because it acted as an agent of foreign governments.

Turkey v. Usoyan, cert. denied, 143 S.Ct. ___ (2022)

The petition asks the Court to review the D.C. Circuit's application of the discretionary function exception to Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's (FSIA) territorial tort exception. The D.C. Circuit held that Turkey was not immune from claims arising from the use of force against protesters in the United States by a security detail for Turkey's president because the territorial tort exception to the FSIA applied and the use of force did not qualify as a discretionary function.

Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co., cert. denied, 143 S.Ct. ___ (2022)

The petition asks the Court to consider whether a U.S. court may decline to apply U.S. antitrust law on grounds of international comity based on a multifactor balancing test and whether a court interpreting the meaning of foreign law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1 is limited to reviewing the law on its face. The Second Circuit held that an antitrust case should have been dismissed after finding a facial conflict with Chinese law and concluding that the balance of factors favored dismissal.

Ukraine v. PAO Tatneft, cert. denied, 143 S.Ct. ___ (2022)

The petition asks the Court to resolve a circuit split about whether forum non conveniens is available in proceedings to confirm a foreign arbitral award. The Second Circuit has held that, under federal common law, forum non conveniens is available and that courts may dismiss proceedings to confirm arbitral awards when defendants can point to a better alternative forum. The D.C. Circuit, on the other hand, has held that forum non conveniens is categorically unavailable in proceedings to confirm foreign arbitral awards.

Deripaska v. Yellen, cert. denied, 143 S.Ct. ___ (2022)

The petition asks the Court to consider whether the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control acted beyond the scope of its statutory authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act when it imposed sanctions on petitioner in response to a threat for which no national emergency had been declared.

Prior Terms

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.