Second Circuit Finds Provision of New York Convention Self-Executing
The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause states that “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land,” but the U.S. Supreme Court has long distinguished between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties. Self-executing treaty provisions are effective as federal law without implementing legislation. Non-self-executing treaty…
Continue ReadingHalkbank Files New Cert Petition
Halkbank, a Turkish state-owned bank accused of violating U.S. sanctions on Iran, filed a petition for certiorarilast week seeking a second chance to convince the Supreme Court that it is immune from criminal prosecution in the United States. In its first trip to the Court, back in 2023, Halkbank argued that it was entitled to…
Continue ReadingCVSG in Wye Oak v. Republic of Iraq: Is it Time to Resolve the FSIA “Direct Effect” Circuit Split?
On April 28, 2025, the Supreme Court called for the views of the Solicitor General (colloquially a “CVSG”) in Wye Oak Tech., Inc. v. Republic of Iraq. This is the latest chapter in a decades-long attempt by Wye Oak (discussed in a separate blog post) to recover damages for the breach of a contract it…
Continue ReadingNinth Circuit Addresses Common Law Immunity from Criminal Prosecution
Two years ago, in Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States (Halkbank) (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) does not apply to criminal proceedings and remanded the defendant’s claim of common law immunity to the Second Circuit. On remand, the Second Circuit deferred to the executive branch’s determination that Halkbank was not…
Continue ReadingFederal Court Issues Worldwide Anti-Enforcement Injunction
Last month, Judge Edward Davila (Northern District of California) granted a motion by Google for a rare type of equitable relief: a worldwide anti-enforcement injunction. In Google v. Nao Tsargrad Media, a Russian media company obtained a judgment against Google in Russia and then began proceedings to enforce it in nine different countries. Arguing that…
Continue ReadingWhen Is a Securities Transaction “Domestic” Under Morrison?
In Morrison v. National Australia Bank (2010), the Supreme Court held that § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act applies only to “transactions in securities listed on domestic exchanges, and domestic transactions in other securities.” This holding doomed the securities fraud claims in Morrison because the plaintiffs purchased their shares on the Australian Securities Exchange….
Continue ReadingEnforcing Foreign Judgments in Non-Uniform Act States
The recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the United States are generally governed by state law. Most states have adopted one of two uniform acts to address this. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have adopted the 2005 Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act. Nine additional states still rely on its predecessor, the…
Continue ReadingServing Foreign Defendants’ U.S. Counsel to Avoid the Hague Service Convention
Plaintiffs are sometimes frustrated trying to serve process on foreign defendants through the Hague Service Convention. Sometimes, they ask federal district courts to authorize service by email as an alternative means. The problem with this, as Maggie Gardner and I have explained in detail, is that that the means of service provided in the Convention…
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 Reading