$314M and Sovereign Immunity Are At Stake in Upcoming High Court Case
Even if the U.S. were amenable to accepting service at its foreign embassies, adherence to the Second Circuit's statutory interpretation could upend customary international law and the executive branch's reading of sovereign immunity.
November 01, 2018 at 11:58 AM
5 minute read
The Nov. 7 Supreme Court arguments in Republic of Sudan v. Harrison will implicate issues of civil procedure, sovereign immunity, and statutory interpretation. At stake for the Republic of Sudan is $314 million in Sudanese assets. More broadly, however, the court's decision could have ramifications for any nation, including the United States, that enjoys sovereign immunity.
Issues related to international affairs occupy much of the court's attention. In this year's November sitting, the court will examine whether international organizations are owed sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Last year, the court determined that foreign corporations could not be named in suits brought under the Alien Tort Statute and that the FSIA's terrorism exception does not provide a free-standing basis for parties to attach a foreign state's property in order to satisfy a judgment.
In Harrison, survivors of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole filed suit under the FSIA, alleging that the Republic of Sudan provided material support to al-Qaida bombers. The FSIA generally prohibits lawsuits against foreign countries in U.S. courts, but excepts, among others, designated state sponsors of terrorism.
Service is proper under the FSIA if sent “to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs.” In Harrison, the clerk of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia served defendants by addressing the documents to the minister of foreign affairs and mailing them to the Sudanese Embassy in Washington
The district court found that the minister was properly served because the statute does not specify a particular location for service. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that, although it was a “close call,” service through the embassy was sufficient because it “could reasonably be expected to result in delivery to the intended person.”
The Second Circuit's decision arguably conflicts with the decisions of its sister courts, which have found that a broad interpretation of the FSIA is inconsistent with Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The VCDR provides that “the premises of the mission shall be inviolable” and that a “diplomatic agent shall … enjoy immunity from [the host state's] civil and administrative jurisdiction.” The Fourth and Seventh circuits determined that any attempt to serve a foreign entity through an embassy is prohibited by the VCDR.
By contrast, the Second Circuit in Harrison distinguished service on an embassy by mail from service on a minister of foreign affairs via an embassy, finding that the latter was consistent with the VCDR. The Second Circuit also found that acceptance of the documents by a mailroom clerk constituted “consent” under the VCDR.
Should the court accept the Second Circuit's broad statutory reading of the VCDR, the implications for the U.S. could be staggering. At any given time, the U.S. is represented in approximately 1,000 lawsuits in 100 different countries. The U.S. currently refuses to accept service through mail or personal delivery to a U.S. embassy.
Even if the U.S. were amenable to accepting service at its foreign embassies, adherence to the Second Circuit's statutory interpretation could upend customary international law and the executive branch's reading of sovereign immunity. U.S. courts have long strived to avoid violating foreign law if possible, and the State Department has found that creating a diplomatic mission in a foreign state did not empower that mission to act as an agent for service.
The bar should watch carefully for how much import the court places on the threat of reciprocal consequences. The court could weigh heavily the concerns of the United States, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, all of which filed amicus briefs arguing that allowing service of process via an embassy would create “international discord.” The decision could ultimately affect not only how foreign entities are subjected to service abroad, but more generally how treaties and principles of international law are interpreted in a variety of international civil litigation contexts.
Peter B. “Bo” Rutledge is dean of the University of Georgia School of Law, where he holds the Herman Talmadge Chair of Law. A former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court of the United States, Rutledge pursues teaching and research of international dispute resolution, arbitration, international business transactions and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Amanda W. Newton is a third-year law student and research clerkship and merit scholarship recipient at the University of Georgia School of Law. In addition to serving as a research assistant for the dean of the law school, she is a member of the executive board on the Journal of Intellectual Property Law, a representative on the Honor Court and a Dean's Ambassador.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllIn RE: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation
Second Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-59
- 2The American Lawyer Names Industry Award Winners
- 3Regulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
- 4Cravath Elevates 7 to Partnership, Up From Last Year
- 5Kline & Specter Hit With Lawsuit From Another Former Associate
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250