U.S. Brief in Halkbank Abandons Customary International Law in Immunity Cases
In Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States (Halkbank), the Supreme Court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) does not apply to criminal proceedings. The Court remanded Halkbank’s separate claim of common law immunity to the Second Circuit for reconsideration. On November 20, 2023, after two extensions, the United States filed its brief on remand. The U.S….
Continue ReadingDomestic Litigation and Compensation to Ukrainian Victims of Russian Aggression
Many proposals to compensate Ukrainian victims of Russian aggression do not directly involve domestic courts, in part because foreign sovereign immunity poses significant obstacles to such litigation. There are, however, important cases against Russia currently pending in Ukrainian courts. These cases were the subject of a recent session held in Lviv, Ukraine, as part of…
Continue ReadingPersonal Jurisdiction and Extraterritoriality
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said that Congress has constitutional authority to regulate extraterritorially. “Both parties concede, as they must,” Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co. (1991), “that Congress has the authority to enforce its laws beyond the territorial boundaries of the United States.” The presumption against extraterritoriality, which…
Continue ReadingSupreme Court Requests Response to FNC Cert Petition
The Supreme Court has called for a response in Wamai v. Industrial Bank of Korea, a terrorism-related lawsuit that was dismissed for forum non conveniens. The plaintiffs have asked the Court to consider how much deference federal courts should give U.S. plaintiffs’ choice of forum when they are joined by foreign co-plaintiffs. The Southern District…
Continue ReadingCourt Rejects Challenge to OFAC Blocking Order
Sanctions are an increasingly important part of United States foreign policy, and cases challenging them are also of growing significance. Sanctioned entities face an uphill battle in court however, as illustrated by a recent decision from the Southern District of New York: Rusaviainvest, OOO v. Yellen. Rusaviainvest, OOO (the plaintiffs) challenged an order by the…
Continue ReadingAre Social Media Algorithms “Passive Nonfeasance”? What Twitter v. Taamneh Got Wrong
In the recent case of Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that Facebook, Twitter, and Google knowingly provided assistance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) in connection with its attack on the Reina nightclub in Istanbul, Turkey in 2017. The plaintiffs, family…
Continue ReadingConstitutional Issues in the Sudan Claims Resolution Act
District courts and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia have recently issued opinions addressing constitutional issues in litigation against Sudan. The United States and the Republic of Sudan signed an agreement (the Claims and Dispute Resolution Agreement) designed to improve diplomatic relations between the two countries, to promote democracy in Sudan, and…
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 ReadingFuld: Right for the Wrong Reason
In a major decision interpreting Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. (2023), the Second Circuit in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization held that personal jurisdiction may not be established by relying on the “deemed consent” provision of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (“PSJVTA”). A thorough review of the decision can…
Continue ReadingSecond Circuit Rejects Consent-Based Jurisdiction over PLO
Last Friday, the Second Circuit issued much-anticipated decisions in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization and Waldman v. Palestine Liberation Organization, cases brought by U.S. nationals against the Palestine Liberation Organization (“PLO”) and Palestinian Authority (“PA”) for injuries sustained during terrorist attacks in Israel. After the Second Circuit held in an earlier decision in Waldman that…
Continue Reading