Supreme Court

Abitron: Media Coverage Round-Up

On March 21, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., a case on review from the Tenth Circuit raising the geographic reach of federal law. The respondent, an Oklahoma-based electronics manufacturing company, brought a trademark infringement claim under the Lanham Act against the petitioner, a group of German…

Continue Reading

Cert Petition Highlights Circuit Split on Sovereign Immunity for Military Purchases

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) immunizes foreign states from suit in federal and state court. But it makes an exception for actions based on a foreign state’s commercial activities. The Supreme Court’s leading decision interpreting this exception is Republic of Argentina v. Weltover (1992), where the Court unanimously held “that when a foreign government…

Continue Reading

Supreme Court Focuses on Consumer Confusion in Extraterritorial Trademark Case

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. The question before the Court is when the federal trademark statute, known as the Lanham Act, applies to the use of trademarks outside the United States. The respondent, a U.S. company that makes radio remote controls for heavy construction equipment,…

Continue Reading

Preview of Supreme Court Argument in Extraterritorial Trademark Case

On March 21, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. to decide when the federal trademark statute, known as the Lanham Act, applies to the use of trademarks outside the United States. The stakes are high—not just for the parties arguing over a $90 million damages…

Continue Reading

Supreme Court Likely to Shield Internet Platforms from Liability for Terrorist Acts

On February 21 and 22, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two companion cases regarding the liability of internet platforms for terrorists’ use of their services. Gonzalez v. Google concerns the scope of immunity for internet companies under 47 U.S.C § 230, specifically whether that statutory grant of immunity covers a platform’s automated suggestions…

Continue Reading

Supreme Court to Consider Tech Companies’ Liability for Terrorism

On February 21 and 22, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in two cases, Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh, that raise questions about how a civil cause of action set forth in the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) applies when known terrorist organizations use social media services. Both cases involve terrorist attacks (in Paris…

Continue Reading

One More Thought on Halkbank

The recent Supreme Court argument in Türkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. (Halkbank) v. United States has captivated the transnational litigation community. Experts have weighed in in many forms, including on this blog. In this post, I want to add one more thought that I have not seen raised in this context. Even if the Court decides…

Continue Reading

The Media Coverage of Turkiye Halk Bankasi, in Review

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, a criminal case originating in the Second Circuit. The defendant, Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. (“Halkbank”), is a foreign state-owned commercial bank, headquartered in Istanbul, and a subsidiary of the Turkish government’s sovereign wealth fund. Charged with laundering over $1…

Continue Reading

Expert Recap and Analysis of Halkbank Oral Argument at the Supreme Court

Editor’s Note: This article also appears in Just Security. On January 17, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Türkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. (Halkbank) v. United States. The case asks whether Halkbank, which is majority-owned by the Turkish Wealth Fund (TWF), enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution in U.S. courts. Last spring, I previewed the unresolved…

Continue Reading

Supreme Court Grants Cert to Resolve Split Over Extraterritoriality of Civil RICO

Earlier today, the Supreme Court granted cert in Yegiazaryan v. Smagin and CMB Monaco v. Smagin and consolidated the cases for oral argument. The question in both cases is how RICO’s private right of action applies to intangible property, in this case a California judgment confirming a foreign arbitral award. As I previously noted on…

Continue Reading

Ingrid (Wuerth) Brunk

Vanderbilt Law School
ingrid.wuerth@vanderbilt.eduEmail

William Dodge

UC Davis School of Law
wsdodge@ucdavis.eduEmail

Maggie Gardner

Cornell Law School
mgardner@cornell.eduEmail

John F. Coyle

University of North Carolina School of Law
jfcoyle@email.unc.eduEmail

Zachary D. Clopton

Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
zclopton@law.northwestern.eduEmail

Melissa Stewart

Georgetown University Law Center
Bio | Posts

Matt Slovin

Bio | Posts

Noah Buyon

Duke University School of Law
Bio | Posts

Will Moon

University of Maryland
Bio | Posts

William K. McGoughran

Vanderbilt Law School
Bio | Posts

Chimène Keitner

UC Davis School of Law
Bio | Posts

Catherine Amirfar

Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Bio | Posts

Justin R. Rassi

Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Bio | Posts

Isabelle Glimcher

Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Bio | Posts