D.C. Circuit Holds Fuld Does Not Apply to District of Columbia
In July, the D.C. Circuit (Judge Justin Walker) held that the local courts of the District of Columbia are still constrained by the minimum contacts test for personal jurisdiction derived from International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) and not by the “more flexible” test permitted by the Fifth Amendment after Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization…
Continue ReadingSovereign Immunity and Choice-of-Law Clauses
On its face, a choice-of-law clause selecting the laws of the United States (or a state within the United States) may seem irrelevant to whether a foreign nation has waived its sovereign immunity in U.S. courts. Over the years, however, a number of U.S. courts have held that a choice-of-law clause may, in fact, function as an implied…
Continue ReadingChoice of Law in Terrorism Cases Redux
On September 16, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Senior Judge Richard J. Leon) decided Messina v. Syrian Arab Republic. This case is the latest in a long series brought by victims of state-sponsored terrorism in the District of Columbia. In a pair of prior posts, I argued that the courts’…
Continue ReadingMore Choice of Law in Terrorism Cases
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (DDC) hears a lot of state-sponsored terrorism cases. The plaintiffs in these cases typically assert a cause of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c). This action is, however, only available to individuals who are either (1) a U.S. national, (2) a U.S. servicemember, (3) a U.S….
Continue ReadingChoice of Law in Terrorism Cases
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (DDC) is routinely called upon to adjudicate civil cases where plaintiffs bring claims against foreign sovereigns on behalf of themselves or relatives who were killed or injured in terrorist attacks overseas. If the plaintiff is neither a U.S. national, a U.S. servicemember, a U.S. government employee,…
Continue Reading