Supreme Court Oral Argument in Extraterritorial RICO Case Marked by Confusion
The Supreme Court heard oral argument last week in Yegiazaryan v. Smagin and CMB Monaco v. Smagin, two cases testing when civil RICO can be used to help enforce a foreign arbitration award. Because I have described the facts in a previous post, I will be brief here. Smagin and Yegiazaryan are Russian citizens who…
Continue ReadingOpen Questions after Halkbank
The Supreme Court held this week in Türkiye Halk Bankasi, A.S. v. United States that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) does not apply to criminal prosecutions. That holding was a blow to Halkbank—a foreign state-owned enterprise under indictment—which had argued that the FSIA provided it with immunity. But the case is not over. The…
Continue ReadingThrowback Thursday: Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
Ten years ago this week, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., applying the presumption against extraterritoriality to the implied cause of action for human rights violations under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). In Kiobel, the Court began to whittle down the cause of action it had…
Continue ReadingPreview of Supreme Court Argument in Civil RICO Extraterritoriality Case
On April 25, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Yegiazaryan v. Smagin and CMB Monaco v. Smagin, which ask how RICO’s private right of action applies to intangible property, in this case a California judgment confirming a foreign arbitral award. The cases have important implications not just for civil RICO but also for international arbitration….
Continue ReadingAbitron: 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 ReadingCert 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 ReadingSupreme 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 ReadingPreview 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 ReadingSupreme Court Grants Cert in Admiralty/Choice-of-Law Clause Case
Earlier today, the Supreme Court granted cert in Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co. LLC. The question presented is whether, under federal admiralty law, a choice-of-law clause in a maritime contract can be rendered unenforceable if enforcement is contrary to the “strong public policy” of the state whose law is displaced. The…
Continue ReadingMaterial Support of Terrorism Looms over Supreme Court’s Social Media Case
On February 22, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Twitter v. Taamneh. The case concerns an act of violence committed by ISIS in a Turkish nightclub in 2017. In bringing suit in the lower courts, plaintiffs alleged that Twitter, Facebook, and Google aided and abetted ISIS’s attack, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §…
Continue Reading