What the Restatement Actually Says: A Response to Brilmayer and Listwa
In a recent post, Lea Brilmayer and Dan Listwa argue that there is a contradiction in the draft Restatement (Third) of Conflict of Laws, for which I am the Reporter. They claim that the Restatement’s two-step model for choice of law is in fundamental conflict with its statement of blackletter rules, and they argue instead…
Continue ReadingA Theory-Less Restatement for Conflict of Laws
For the first time in over half a century, the American Law Institute (“ALI”) is drafting a new Restatement of Conflict of Laws. The world has changed a great deal since 1971 when the Restatement (Second) was published, growing far more interconnected—so the idea of a new Restatement, taking into account the last few decades…
Continue ReadingMultistate Defamation, Cross-Border Torts, and Choice of Law
Multistate defamation cases have always presented difficult choice-of-law problems, but the advent of the internet has exacerbated them. Nunes v. Cable News Network, Inc is a good example on point, besides being a very interesting case on other grounds. This post presents this case, but also examines how other countries resolve conflicts in cases of…
Continue ReadingThrowback Thursday: Joseph Story and the Comity of Nations
One of the most influential books on transnational litigation was written nearly two centuries ago by a sitting Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws, first published in 1834, synthesized foreign and domestic cases regarding conflict of laws and the enforcement of foreign judgments. Story endorsed international comity…
Continue ReadingForeign Sovereign Immunity and Choice of Law—State, not Federal
In Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, the Supreme Court unanimously held that, in adjudicating state-law claims against a foreign state or instrumentality under one of the exceptions to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. § 1602, et seq., a federal court must apply the choice-of-law rules of the forum state rather than federal…
Continue ReadingWhat Should Happen Next in Cassirer?
Most of the procedural questions that arise in domestic litigation have a counterpart in transnational litigation. In Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, the Supreme Court confronted the transnational counterpart to Klaxon v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co., a much-debated choice-of-law case decided in 1941. As Justice Kagan noted in her opinion for a unanimous Court, “[a]lthough…
Continue ReadingCassirer and FSIA Choice of Law
Today the Supreme Court unanimously resolved an important case about choice of law under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation is a lawsuit about the ownership of a Camille Pissarro painting, surrendered by Lilly Cassirer to the Nazis and now held by a foundation created and controlled by the Government…
Continue ReadingSupreme Court decides Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation
The Supreme Court today unanimously held in Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation that state choice-of-law rules apply in cases brought against foreign sovereigns alleging non-federal claims.
Continue ReadingChoice-of-Law Methodologies: Updating the List
This is an update of the list of choice-of-law methodologies followed in the United States. The changes are: (1) the abandonment of the lex loci contractus rule by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island in 2022, and (2) the enactment of a new choice-of-law codification by Puerto Rico in 2020.
Continue ReadingClimate Change Litigation and the “Foreign Affairs” Trump Card
Having found the federal courts unfriendly to climate-related claims, a series of plaintiffs—mostly state and municipal governments—have sued fossil fuel companies under state law often in state court. Oil company defendants resisting these claims have argued that federal law, not state law, should govern. For cases filed in state court, defendants also have sought to remove the cases to federal court, asserting federal jurisdiction on various theories.
Continue Reading