Podcasts about fsia

John is joined by Michael Gottlieb, partner in the Washington D.C. office of Wilkie Farr & Gallagher, and Nicholas Reddick, partner in the San Francisco office of Wilkie Farr & Gallagher.  They discuss the landmark $1.1 billion judgment Michael and Nicholas obtained against the Islamic Republic of Iran, on behalf of U.S. service members and civilians harmed by Iran-backed terrorist groups and the legal framework for suing state sponsors of terrorism and private organizations that support them.  Claims against sovereign states are based upon the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).  FSIA claims require plaintiffs to prove that the foreign sovereign materially supported acts of terrorism, often through militia groups operating in conflict zones.  The process is complex and time-consuming.  Although Iran never appears to defend these cases, plaintiffs must still prove liability and damages with admissible evidence, often obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, military reports, and expert testimony.  Because such judgments are rarely enforceable against Iran's frozen or inaccessible assets, successful plaintiffs must seek compensation through the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund, which draws from congressional appropriations and settlements from unrelated sanctions violations.  Payments from the fund are made annually and prorated based on judgment size, but disbursements have been inconsistent.  Recent developments, including circuit court rulings and a pending Supreme Court case, may reshape key legal standards for FSIA claims, such as the requirement of an actual death for certain terrorism-related claims.  Several new legislative efforts seek to expand the cases that may be brought under the FSIA and increase the funds allocated for compensating victims.  Claims against private entities such as banks, contractors or companies that evaded sanctions rely upon the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA).  Many such cases are currently being litigated.  ATA claims require proof of the defendant's material support and knowledge of terrorist outcomes.  The defendants in ATA cases are likely to appear to defend against the claims, but only after the plaintiffs navigate complex issues of jurisdiction and service of process.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this case, the court considered these three issues:1. Does historical commingling of assets suffice to establish that proceeds of seized property have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act?2. Must a plaintiff make out a valid claim that an exception to the FSIA applies at the pleading stage, rather than merely raising a plausible inference?3. Does a sovereign defendant bear the burden of producing evidence to affirmatively disprove that the proceeds of property taken in violation of international law have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the FSIA?The case was decided on February 21, 2025.The Supreme Court held that an allegation that a foreign sovereign liquidated expropriated property, commingled the proceeds with other funds, and then used some of those commingled funds for commercial activities in the United States cannot alone satisfy the commercial nexus requirement of the expropriation exception in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA). Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the unanimous opinion of the Court.The expropriation exception requires plaintiffs to establish a clear trace between expropriated property (or the proceeds from its sale) and property present in the United States in connection with commercial activity. While money is fungible, merely stating that proceeds from the liquidation of an expropriated asset were once mixed with other funds is insufficient. To satisfy the FSIA's requirements, plaintiffs must show that specific funds or assets linked to the seized property are currently in the United States or were used for identifiable commercial transactions there.This interpretation aligns with the FSIA's structure and purpose, which generally adopts the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity, shielding foreign states from suits arising from public (rather than commercial) acts. Congress designed the expropriation exception to conform closely to international law, avoiding excessive interference in foreign relations. The requirement to trace specific property reflects this cautious approach. Accepting the commingling theory alone would excessively broaden the FSIA's expropriation exception, potentially undermining sovereign immunity principles and inviting retaliatory measures from foreign nations.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Send us a textTo learn more, please visit Amineddoleh & Associates LLC and view Leila Amineddoleh performing Chopin Polonaise, Op. 26, No. 1 and Liszt Liebestraum No. 3.Show Notes:1:00 Amineddoleh's background and work in music and law4:00 Patty Gerstenblith 7:00 building Amineddoleh & Assoc.8:45 Amineddoleh's work with Greece 10:00 perspective as musician aids in work as attorney to other artists 11:00 Amineddoleh's experience with plagiarism 14:20 Amineddoleh's practice15:45 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act19:50 artists' perspectives in hiring an attorney 22:50 Jerry Alonzo: what brings artists to seek out Amineddoleh26:00 return of golden coffin of Nedjemankh 31:45 use of AI 36:30 AI-assisted Beatles song 37:45 analogy of photography to AI outputs38:20 Japanese photographer Hiroshi Sugimoto 39:45 suit over copyright of monkey selfie 41:45 Thaler v. USCO 44:30 Rupali Gujral: negotiating on a client's behalf48:30 Stefania Salles Bruins: history of art collecting52:30 Bruins: Amineddoleh's balancing of legal and musical practices54:00 Amineddoleh's perspective on sharing her music and performing56:30 Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2  played by Bugs Bunny 57:20 Amineddoleh's performance of Chopin Polonaise, Op. 26, No. 1 and Liszt Liebestraum No. 3 59:00 under-appreciated composer Brahms 1:01:20 injustices in art law1:04:30 Amineddoleh's definition of justice - access1:06:00 John Cage's 4'33” Please share your comments and/or questions at stephanie@warfareofartandlaw.comTo hear more episodes, please visit Warfare of Art and Law podcast's website.To leave questions or comments about this or other episodes of the podcast and/or for information about joining the 2ND Saturday discussion on art, culture and justice, please message me at stephanie@warfareofartandlaw.com. Thanks so much for listening!© Stephanie Drawdy [2024]

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether historical commingling of assets suffices to establish that proceeds of seized property have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; whether a plaintiff must make out a valid claim that an exception to the FSIA applies at the pleading stage, rather than merely raising a plausible inference; and whether a sovereign defendant bears the burden of producing evidence to affirmatively disprove that the proceeds of property taken in violation of international law have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the FSIA. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC (December 2) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether the court of appeals erred in setting aside the Food and Drug Administration’s orders denying respondents’ applications for authorization to market new e-cigarette products as arbitrary and capricious. U.S. v. Miller (December 2) - Bankruptcy; Issue(s): Whether a bankruptcy trustee may avoid a debtor’s tax payment to the United States under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) when no actual creditor could have obtained relief under the applicable state fraudulent-transfer law outside of bankruptcy. Republic of Hungary v. Simon (December 3) - International Law & Financial Services; Issue(s): (1) Whether historical commingling of assets suffices to establish that proceeds of seized property have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; (2) whether a plaintiff must make out a valid claim that an exception to the FSIA applies at the pleading stage, rather than merely raising a plausible inference; and (3) whether a sovereign defendant bears the burden of producing evidence to affirmatively disprove that the proceeds of property taken in violation of international law have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the FSIA. U.S. v. Skrmetti (December 4) - Federalism & Separation of Powers& SOGI; Issue(s): Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,” violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Kousisis v. U.S. (December 9) - Environmental Law & Financial Services; Issue(s): (1) Whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud, even if inflicting economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme; (2) whether a sovereign’s statutory, regulatory, or policy interest is a property interest when compliance is a material term of payment for goods or services; and (3) whether all contract rights are “property.” Feliciano v. Department of Transportation (December 9) - Federal Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency. Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado (December 10) - Environmental Law & Financial Services; Issue(s): Whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority. Dewberry Group v. Dewberry Engineers (December 11) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether an award of the “defendant’s profits” under the Lanham Act can include an order for the defendant to disgorge the distinct profits of legally separate non-party corporate affiliates. Featuring: Boyd Garriott, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP Eric N. Kniffin, Attorney, Kniffin Law PLLC, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center Michael Pepson, Regulatory Counsel, Americans for Prosperity Foundation Alexandra Shapiro, Partner, Shapiro Arato Bach LLP Jeff Stier, Senior Fellow, Consumer Choice Center (Moderator) Tessa Shurr, Committee Staff, U.S. House of Representatives

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Turkiye Halk Bankasi A-S v United States In this case, the court considered this issue: May the district courts properly exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over the criminal prosecution against Halkbank in this case based on the commercial activity exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act? The case was decided on Apr 19, 2023. The Supreme Court held that The district court has jurisdiction in this criminal prosecution; the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's comprehensive scheme governing claims of immunity in civil actions against foreign states and their instrumentalities does not cover criminal cases. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court. 18 U.S.C. § 3231 contains a broad jurisdictional grant: it gives district courts original jurisdiction over “all offenses against the laws of the United States.” Absent a textual exclusion of foreign states, the most natural reading of that provision is that it includes them. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act covers only civil cases. It grants district courts original jurisdiction over “any nonjury civil action against a foreign state” as to “any claim for relief in personam with respect to which the foreign state is not entitled to immunity” and describes procedures and remedies applicable exclusively in civil, not criminal, cases. FSIA is silent as to criminal prosecutions. Its one provision that a “foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States except as provided in sections 1605 to 1607 of this chapter” must be read in conjunction with the rest of the Act, which focuses exclusively on civil matters. However, principles of common-law immunity might preclude this criminal prosecution even if the FSIA does not. Thus, the Court affirmed the appellate court's determination that the district court had jurisdiction, reversed as to its conclusion that FSIA granted immunity from criminal prosecution, and vacated and remanded as to the issue of common-law immunity claims. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justice Samuel Alito. Justice Gorsuch argued that FSIA alone dictates the answer to the immunity questions in this case and thus agrees with the majority as to all but the judgment to vacate and remand the question of common-law immunity. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Turkiye Halk Bankasi a.k.a. Halkbank v. United States (April 19, 2023) Majority Opinion 

On January 17, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States.Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. (“Halkbank”) was indicted by a grand jury in 2019, and charged with involvement in a scheme to launder billions of dollars worth of proceeds from Iranian oil and natural gas, which was in violation of U.S. sanctions against Iran at the time.Halkbank is majority-owned by the government of Turkey and moved to dismiss this indictment, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction. Halkbank contended that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the fact that the government of Turkey had a majority of its ownership made it immune to criminal prosecution in U.S. federal court. In relying on FSIA, Halkbank asserted that exceptions in FSIA apply only to civil cases, and that even if such exceptions applied in criminal cases, Halkbank Would still be immune under common law standards.The U.S. District Court rejected the argument put forward by Halkbank, and the Second Circuit affirmed. This Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question of whether US district courts may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions against foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and in light of FSIA.Please join us to break down and analyze the oral argument!Featuring:Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLP

From December 11, 2020: This week, the Supreme Court returned once again to the complex and sometimes controversial Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, that protects foreign sovereigns from litigation before U.S. courts. At the same time, Congress is once again debating new exceptions to the protections provided by the FSIA on issues ranging from cybercrime to the coronavirus pandemic, an effort that may risk violating international law and exposing the United States to similar lawsuits overseas. To discuss these developments and where they may be headed, Scott R. Anderson sat down with two leading scholars on sovereign immunity issues: Chimène Keitner, a professor at the UC Hastings School of Law and a former counselor on international law at the U.S. State Department, and Ingrid Wuerth, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School and one of the reporters for the American Law Institute's Fourth Restatement on U.S. foreign relations law.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 2019, the U.S. government took a step that it had never taken before. It brought criminal charges against a foreign state-owned bank, Turkiye Halk Bankasi, or Halkbank, which is majority-owned by the country of Turkiye (until recently known as Turkey), for evading U.S. sanctions on Iran. Turkiye in turn argued that such a move was not only unprecedented but prohibited by the legal immunities it is entitled to under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA. Yesterday, those arguments reached the U.S. Supreme Court where both sides seemed to agree on just one thing—that the court's eventual decision could well have major consequences for the United States and its foreign relations.To talk through oral arguments in Halkbank, Lawfare senior editor Scott R. Anderson sat down with two leading sovereign immunity experts: Professor Chimène Keitner of the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, and Professor Ingrid Wuerth of Vanderbilt Law School. They discussed how each side reads the FSIA and other related statutes, whether any of the justices seemed particularly persuaded, and where the court—as well as the broader issue—seems likely to go from here.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On January 17, 2023, the US Supreme Court heard oral argument in Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States.Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. (“Halkbank”) was indicted by a grand jury in 2019, and charged with involvement in a scheme to launder billions of dollars worth of proceeds from Iranian oil and natural gas, which was in violation of U.S. sanctions against Iran at the time.Halkbank, is majority-owned by the government of Turkey and moved to dismiss this indictment, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction. Halkbank contended that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the fact that the government of Turkey had a majority of its ownership made it immune to criminal prosecution in U.S. federal court. In relying on FSIA, Halkbank asserted that exceptions in FSIA apply only to civil cases, and that even if such exceptions applied in criminal cases, Halkbank Would still be immune under common law standards.The U.S. District Court rejected the argument put forward by Halkbank, and the Second Circuit affirmed. This Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question of whether US district courts may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions against foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and in light of FSIA.This program, held on January 18, 2023 broke down and analyzed the oral argument.Featuring:--Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLP

The spyware, illegal surveillance, peoples rights and the war on Trump all got combined. Jan 6th 2023 will be a big deal. Reclaiming rights on the internet gets a big push. NSO and the WhatsApp fight. Remember, everything has been pre-planned. Patriot banks are forming. Understanding the real flood that changed the world. Old and new media mimics old and new Gods. The Battles of Ragnorak and symbology thru the ages. Deadly dances and burning swords. Pegasus operates in 45 countries. Private contractor immunity now being questioned. Phone spyware and why no one wants to mention Israel. The big upcoming schedule of SCOTUS. Connections between Flynn and Khashoggi. Legal targeting of private coms and the FSIA. Q info is flushing out hidden agents. It's either enemy global dominance or real digital privacy. Let's hope the United States Supreme Court will break our invisible chains. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From December 11, 2020: This week, the Supreme Court returned once again to the complex and sometimes controversial Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, that protects foreign sovereigns from litigation before U.S. courts. At the same time, Congress is once again debating new exceptions to the protections provided by the FSIA on issues ranging from cybercrime to the coronavirus pandemic, an effort that may risk violating international law and exposing the United States to similar lawsuits overseas. To discuss these developments and where they may be headed, Scott R. Anderson sat down with two leading scholars on sovereign immunity issues: Chimène Keitner, a professor at the UC Hastings School of Law and a former counselor on international law at the U.S. State Department, and Ingrid Wuerth, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School and one of the reporters for the American Law Institute's Fourth Restatement on U.S. foreign relations law.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

My limited understanding: Sovereign entities sued under FSIA (but without a separate cause of action implicating federal jurisdiction) are subject to the choice of law provision of the courts which would otherwise be the lawsuit's venue.Eg. Where you would have had to bring the underlying, non-FSIA/non-federal, Lawsuit where you found the law.Support the show

Cassirer inherited a Pissaro Impressionist painting. After the Nazis came to power in Germany, she surrendered the painting to obtain an exit visa. She and her grandson, Claude, eventually settled in the United States. The family's post-war search for the painting was unsuccessful. In the 1990s, the painting was purchased by the Foundation, an entity created and controlled by the Kingdom of Spain. Claude sued the Foundation, invoking the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1602, to establish jurisdiction. FSIA provides foreign states and their instrumentalities with immunity from suit unless the claim falls within a specified exception. The court held that the Nazi confiscation of the painting brought Claude's suit within the FSIA exception for expropriated property. To determine what property law governed the dispute, the court had to apply a choice-of-law rule. The plaintiffs urged the use of California's choice-of-law rule; the Foundation advocated federal common law. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the choice of the federal option, which commanded the use of the law of Spain, under which the Foundation was the rightful owner. The Supreme Court vacated. In an FSIA suit raising non-federal claims against a foreign state or instrumentality, a court should determine the substantive law by using the same choice-of-law rule applicable in a similar suit against a private party. When a foreign state is not immune from suit under FSIA, it is subject to the same rules of liability as a private party. Only the same choice-of-law rule can guarantee the use of the same substantive law and guarantee the same liability. Judicial creation of federal common law to displace state-created rules must be “necessary to protect uniquely federal interests.” Even the federal government disclaims any necessity for a federal choice-of-law rule in FSIA suits raising non-federal claims. *Credit: Justia US Supreme Court at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/596/20-1566/ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus-opinions/support

Salinas v Railroad Retirement Board (2021) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the United States Railroad Retirement Board choice to refuse to reopen the prior, adverse benefits determination of a former railroad worker was subject to judicial review. Facts and procedural history. Manfredo M. Salinas was an employee of the Union Pacific Railroad for a fifteen-year period and was injured twice while working. In 1992, due to his injuries, Salinas began the process of seeking disability benefits provided under the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974. His application was denied three times, the final denial occurring in 2006. Salinas was granted benefits after a fourth application in 2013. After the board granted Salinas benefits, he appealed for reconsideration of the "amount and start date" of the benefits. This reconsideration was denied. In response, Salinas appealed, arguing that the final denied application should be reopened, as the Railroad Retirement Board had not been given access to pertinent medical records in 2006. A Board hearing officer determined that the 2006 application could not be reopened as the Board's standard four-year window for reopening had closed. After this determination, Salinas asked the U.S. Court of Appeals to review the decision. The Fifth Circuit dismissed Salinas' petition, citing lack of jurisdiction. Federal Republic of Germany v Philipp was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the applicability of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) for heirs of victims of the Holocaust to sue Germany in the United States court systems for compensation for items that were taken by the Nazi Party during World War II. At issue in the case was whether claims fell within the FSIA's exception to sovereign immunity for “property taken in violation of international law,” given that the sovereign here was alleged to have engaged in a taking of its own nationals' property; and whether courts can invoke the doctrine of international comity under the FSIA to abstain from exercising jurisdiction based on prudential considerations. In an unanimous opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that FSIA does not allow these survivors to sue Germany in U.S. court, as the sale was an act of expropriation of property rather than an act of genocide, though other means of recovery are still potentially available. The decision also concluded a related case, Republic of Hungary v Simon, which examined the application of the doctrines of international comity and forum non conveniens for expropriation exception cases brought under the FSIA. The Court decided the case per curiam on the ruling of Germany v Philipp on February 3, 2021. Background. During World War II, the Nazi Party imprisoned numerous people, including a large number of Jewish people, and stripped them of their possessions. In other cases, the Nazi rule forced these people to sell their possessions at significantly reduced prices. At the center of the current case is the Guelph Treasure with an estimated value of US$250 million in 2020. The items were purchased by a consortium of Jewish art dealers prior to the war, but they were then forced to sell the collection at a third of its value in 1935 to agents of Hermann Göring. After the war, the Guelph Treasure pieces were moved to the Kunstgewerbemuseum Berlin (Museum of Decorative Arts) which is overseen by the Federal Republic of Germany under the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, where they have remained as part of the exhibits. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Brian and Tim give thanks for having no shortage of China topics to cover (ever), which include BIS's new interim final rule establishing controls on certain items that can be used for malicious cyber activities, authorized (and possibly unauthorized) exports to Huawei, the FCC's revocation and termination of China Telecom Americas' license, and a brief Lightning Round discussion of the latest on Taiwan. In the middle of all that China content, Brian and Tim also discuss the possible implications of a recent FSIA ruling in the Halkbank case.   ******** Questions? Contact us at podcasts@milchev.com. EMBARGOED! is not intended and cannot be relied on as legal advice; the content only reflects the thoughts and opinions of its hosts. EMBARGOED! is intelligent talk about sanctions, export controls, and all things international trade for trade nerds and normal human beings alike, hosted by Miller & Chevalier Members Brian Fleming and Tim O'Toole. Each episode will feature deep thoughts and hot takes about the latest headline-grabbing developments in this area of the law, as well as some below-the-radar items to keep an eye on. Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts for new bi-weekly episodes so you don't miss out! Roadmap: Introduction The Rundown New BIS Interim Final Rule re: Cybersecurity Items and New Entity Lists Additions Supplying Huawei Team Telecom and China Telecom Halkbank Ruling re: FSIA Lightning Round U.S. Support for Taiwan at the UN Final Thoughts ***Stay sanctions free.***

In the third episode of S&C's Supreme Court Business Review series, hosts Judd Littleton and Julia Malkina are joined by Sharon Cohen Levin, former head of the Money Laundering and Asset Forfeiture Unit in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, to discuss the Supreme Court's recent decision in Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp.   The case considered whether an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act allowed the heirs of a group of Jewish art dealers to bring a lawsuit against Germany in U.S. federal court based on the Nazi regime's expropriation of German medieval relics. The Court held that the heirs' claim did not fall within the FSIA's expropriation exception and therefore was barred by sovereign immunity.   Sharon shares the implications of this decision for future FSIA litigants, including heirs of Holocaust victims and victims of other genocides seeking to recover property taken by foreign governments.   Visit us at Sullcrom.com

On February 3, 2021, the Supreme Court unanimously decided Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp and Republic of Hungary v. Simon. The plaintiffs in Federal Republic of Germany are heirs of German Jewish art collectors who purchased a collection of medieval relics termed the Welfenschatz. As the Third Reich took control of Germany and began assimilating the great cultural achievements of the West, the Nazis government bought the Welfenschatz for one third of its value. Following World War II, the Welfenschatz changed hands, ultimately landing in a Berlin museum owned by the Federal Republic of Germany and maintained by the Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz (SPK).After unsuccessfully seeking compensation from Germany, the heirs to the original owners brought common law property claims against Germany and SPK in United States District Court. Generally, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) would bar such a suit; Germany argued that the possibly applicable exception for “property taken in violation of international law” did not apply to domestic takings where a government takes the property of its own citizens. The heirs argued Germany’s coerced taking was an act of genocide bringing their suit within the exception since genocide violates international human rights law.The Court relied on the long established history of international law to determine the phrase “property taken in violation of international law,” refers specifically to the law of expropriation, which includes the domestic taking rule. Violations of international human rights law do not fall within the phrase, so Germany retains sovereign immunity under FSIA and the heirs cannot recover in U.S. Courts. Relying on Federal Republic of Germany, the Court issued a per curiam decision in Republic of Hungary, directing the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to decide the case in light of its ruling in Federal Republic of Germany. Featuring: -- Professor Alberto R. Coll, Vincent de Paul Professor of Law and Director of Global Engagement, DePaul College of Law

On December 7, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases involving the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). In Republic of Hungary v. Simon, the issue is whether a district court may abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for reasons of international comity, in a matter in which former Hungarian nationals have sued the nation of Hungary to recover the value of property lost in Hungary during World War II but the plaintiffs made no attempt to exhaust local Hungarian remedies.In Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, the issue is whether the “expropriation exception” of the FSIA, which abrogates foreign sovereign immunity when “rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue,” provides jurisdiction over claims that a foreign sovereign has violated international human rights law when taking property from its own national within its own borders, even though such claims do not implicate the established international law governing states’ responsibility for takings of property. Is the doctrine of international comity unavailable in cases against foreign sovereigns, even in cases of considerable historical and political significance to the foreign sovereign, when the foreign nation has a domestic framework for addressing the claims?Featuring: -- Prof. Alberto R. Coll, Vincent de Paul Professor of Law and Director of Global Engagement, DePaul College of Law-- James C. Dunlop, Senior Attorney, Sensient Technologies Corporation

Podcast: The Lawfare Podcast (LS 70 · TOP 0.05% what is this?)Episode: The Past, Present and Future of Sovereign ImmunityPub date: 2020-12-11This week, the Supreme Court returned once again to the complex and sometimes controversial Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, that protects foreign sovereigns from litigation before U.S. courts. At the same time, Congress is once again debating new exceptions to the protections provided by the FSIA on issues ranging from cybercrime to the coronavirus pandemic, an effort that may risk violating international law and exposing the United States to similar lawsuits overseas. To discuss these developments and where they may be headed, Scott R. Anderson sat down with two leading scholars on sovereign immunity issues: Chimène Keitner, a professor at the UC Hastings School of Law and a former counselor on international law at the U.S. State Department, and Ingrid Wuerth, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School and one of the reporters for the American Law Institute's Fourth Restatement on U.S. foreign relations law.The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from The Lawfare Institute, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.

This week, the Supreme Court returned once again to the complex and sometimes controversial Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, that protects foreign sovereigns from litigation before U.S. courts. At the same time, Congress is once again debating new exceptions to the protections provided by the FSIA on issues ranging from cybercrime to the coronavirus pandemic, an effort that may risk violating international law and exposing the United States to similar lawsuits overseas. To discuss these developments and where they may be headed, Scott R. Anderson sat down with two leading scholars on sovereign immunity issues: Chimène Keitner, a professor at the UC Hastings School of Law and a former counselor on international law at the U.S. State Department, and Ingrid Wuerth, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School and one of the reporters for the American Law Institute's Fourth Restatement on U.S. foreign relations law.

Con un ritardo di una settimana sulla tradizionale tabella di marcia, la Nota di aggiornamento al Def si prepara ad approdare stasera sul tavolo del Consiglio dei ministri per il via libera definitivo. I numeri sono quelli emersi già nel consiglio dei ministri della scorsa settimana che aveva dato un prima via libera al testo. Il deficit quest'anno si attesterebbe di poco sotto l'11%, per poi scendere al 7% nel 2021, con una spinta espansiva da oltre 20 miliardi rispetto al tendenziale, e abbassarsi ulteriormente negli anni fino al 3% nel 2023. Nella dinamica del Pil intorno al -9% di quest'anno seguirà un +6% nel 2021 e un altro biennio in corsa, sopra il +2%. L'obiettivo è di abbassare la curva del debito dal 158% di quest'anno al 150% alla fine del periodo. Dietro la notizia Nell'appuntamento settimanale con Alessandro Plateroti una domanda è sorta spontanea: dopo che l'Europa si è attrezzata con il Recovery fund, che la Bce ha lanciato il programma di acquisti pandemico, che negli Stati Uniti sono stati lanciati programmi di ripresa da migliaia di miliardi, che fine ha fatto il Fondo Monetario Internazionale che invece aveva avuto un ruolo fondamentale dopo la crisi europea del 2011? La fusione tra Nexi e Sia Via libera alla fusione tra Nexi e Sia. I consigli di amministrazione delle due aziende hanno dato ieri sera il via libera all'operazione con la sottoscrizione di un memorandum of understanding tra Nexi, Sia, Cdp Equity, Fsia e Mercury, cioè il veicolo dei private equity Bain Capital, Advent e Clessidra. Alla fine dell'operazione nascerà un player italiano di dimensione europea, pronto a cogliere le opportunità di consolidamento a livello internazionale, una realtà da 1,8 miliardi di euro di ricavi aggregati pro-forma e un miliardo di euro di Ebitda aggregato pro-forma al 31 dicembre 2019. Arriva così a compimento l'operazione fortemente voluta sia dai private equity azionisti di Nexi sia da Cdp, la Cassa Depositi e Prestiti guidata da Fabrizio Palermo maggiore socio di Sia. Ospiti: Gianni Trovati, Il Sole 24 Ore, Alessandro Plateroti, editorialista del Sole 24 Ore, Laura Serafini, Il Sole 24 Ore

Con un ritardo di una settimana sulla tradizionale tabella di marcia, la Nota di aggiornamento al Def si prepara ad approdare stasera sul tavolo del Consiglio dei ministri per il via libera definitivo. I numeri sono quelli emersi già nel consiglio dei ministri della scorsa settimana che aveva dato un prima via libera al testo. Il deficit quest'anno si attesterebbe di poco sotto l'11%, per poi scendere al 7% nel 2021, con una spinta espansiva da oltre 20 miliardi rispetto al tendenziale, e abbassarsi ulteriormente negli anni fino al 3% nel 2023. Nella dinamica del Pil intorno al -9% di quest'anno seguirà un +6% nel 2021 e un altro biennio in corsa, sopra il +2%. L'obiettivo è di abbassare la curva del debito dal 158% di quest'anno al 150% alla fine del periodo. Dietro la notizia Nell'appuntamento settimanale con Alessandro Plateroti una domanda è sorta spontanea: dopo che l'Europa si è attrezzata con il Recovery fund, che la Bce ha lanciato il programma di acquisti pandemico, che negli Stati Uniti sono stati lanciati programmi di ripresa da migliaia di miliardi, che fine ha fatto il Fondo Monetario Internazionale che invece aveva avuto un ruolo fondamentale dopo la crisi europea del 2011? La fusione tra Nexi e Sia Via libera alla fusione tra Nexi e Sia. I consigli di amministrazione delle due aziende hanno dato ieri sera il via libera all'operazione con la sottoscrizione di un memorandum of understanding tra Nexi, Sia, Cdp Equity, Fsia e Mercury, cioè il veicolo dei private equity Bain Capital, Advent e Clessidra. Alla fine dell'operazione nascerà un player italiano di dimensione europea, pronto a cogliere le opportunità di consolidamento a livello internazionale, una realtà da 1,8 miliardi di euro di ricavi aggregati pro-forma e un miliardo di euro di Ebitda aggregato pro-forma al 31 dicembre 2019. Arriva così a compimento l'operazione fortemente voluta sia dai private equity azionisti di Nexi sia da Cdp, la Cassa Depositi e Prestiti guidata da Fabrizio Palermo maggiore socio di Sia. Ospiti: Gianni Trovati, Il Sole 24 Ore, Alessandro Plateroti, editorialista del Sole 24 Ore, Laura Serafini, Il Sole 24 Ore

As foreign governments do more business in the United States, questions about the intersection of sovereign immunity and U.S. law will undoubtedly arise. In this episode, host Alan Pierce talks with Boston litigator Ted Folkman about an important 1st Circuit case of theirs — Merlini v. Canada — that’s been winding its way through the federal courts for more than 11 years. The case involves what would otherwise be a fairly common workers compensation claim. The difference here is that the injured party is a U.S. citizen who was working in the Canadian consulate in Boston. Even though businesses in Massachusetts are required to carry workers compensation insurance, the Canadian government is asserting the U.S. courts don’t have jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which shields foreign governments from most actions in U.S. courts. Folkman is arguing that U.S. courts have jurisdiction under FSIA’s commercial activity exception because the employee, Cynthia Merlini, wasn’t conducting high-level Canadian business. Instead, she was working like any other administrative assistant at a U.S.-owned business. Ted Folkman is the founder of Folkman LLC and was previously a partner at Pierce Bainbridge in Boston. Special thanks to our sponsor, PInow.

As foreign governments do more business in the United States, questions about the intersection of sovereign immunity and U.S. law will undoubtedly arise. In this episode, host Alan Pierce talks with Boston litigator Ted Folkman about an important 1st Circuit case of theirs — Merlini v. Canada — that’s been winding its way through the federal courts for more than 11 years. The case involves what would otherwise be a fairly common workers compensation claim. The difference here is that the injured party is a U.S. citizen who was working in the Canadian consulate in Boston. Even though businesses in Massachusetts are required to carry workers compensation insurance, the Canadian government is asserting the U.S. courts don’t have jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which shields foreign governments from most actions in U.S. courts. Folkman is arguing that U.S. courts have jurisdiction under FSIA’s commercial activity exception because the employee, Cynthia Merlini, wasn’t conducting high-level Canadian business. Instead, she was working like any other administrative assistant at a U.S.-owned business. Ted Folkman is the founder of Folkman LLC and was previously a partner at Pierce Bainbridge in Boston. Special thanks to our sponsor, PInow.

On May 18, 2020, the Supreme Court held by a vote of 8-0 that Plaintiffs in a suit against a foreign state for personal injury or death caused by acts of terrorism under 28 U. S. C. § 1605A(c) may seek punitive damages for pre-enactment conduct.Following the 1998 al Qaeda bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, victims and their families brought suit against the Republic of Sudan, alleging that it had assisted al Qaeda in carrying out the attacks. In doing so, plaintiffs invoked a terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)--but there was uncertainty as to whether, even in the absence of an immunity bar, Congress had provided a federal cause of action for claimants such as plaintiffs. In 2008, however, Congress amended FSIA to provide an express cause of action and directed that claims such as plaintiffs’ be treated “as if ” they had been originally filed under the new cause of action. Congress also made punitive damages available under the new cause of action and authorized the filing of new claims that arose out of the same incident as earlier claims. Plaintiffs amended their complaint accordingly and, following a bench trial, obtained a multi-billion dollar damages award, including more than $4 billion in punitive damages. Sudan challenged the punitive damages award on appeal, arguing that Congress had not expressly authorized punitive damages based on conduct that predated its 2008 legislation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed, but the Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari to consider whether, consistent with its decision in Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004), FSIA applies retroactively, thereby permitting recovery of punitive damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c) against foreign states for terrorist activities occurring prior to the passage of the current version of the statute. By a vote of 8-0, the case was vacated and remanded, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch on May 18, 2020. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.To discuss the case, we have Roger Alford, Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On May 18, 2020, the Supreme Court held by a vote of 8-0 that Plaintiffs in a suit against a foreign state for personal injury or death caused by acts of terrorism under 28 U. S. C. § 1605A(c) may seek punitive damages for pre-enactment conduct.Following the 1998 al Qaeda bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, victims and their families brought suit against the Republic of Sudan, alleging that it had assisted al Qaeda in carrying out the attacks. In doing so, plaintiffs invoked a terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)--but there was uncertainty as to whether, even in the absence of an immunity bar, Congress had provided a federal cause of action for claimants such as plaintiffs. In 2008, however, Congress amended FSIA to provide an express cause of action and directed that claims such as plaintiffs’ be treated “as if ” they had been originally filed under the new cause of action. Congress also made punitive damages available under the new cause of action and authorized the filing of new claims that arose out of the same incident as earlier claims. Plaintiffs amended their complaint accordingly and, following a bench trial, obtained a multi-billion dollar damages award, including more than $4 billion in punitive damages. Sudan challenged the punitive damages award on appeal, arguing that Congress had not expressly authorized punitive damages based on conduct that predated its 2008 legislation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed, but the Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari to consider whether, consistent with its decision in Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004), FSIA applies retroactively, thereby permitting recovery of punitive damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c) against foreign states for terrorist activities occurring prior to the passage of the current version of the statute. By a vote of 8-0, the case was vacated and remanded, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch on May 18, 2020. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.To discuss the case, we have Roger Alford, Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On Feb. 24, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Opati v. Republic of Sudan, a case involving a dispute over whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act authorizes punitive damages for terrorist activities that took place before Congress amended the statute to provide an express cause of action contemplating such damages. Following the 1998 al Qaeda bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, victims and their families brought suit against the Republic of Sudan, alleging that it had assisted al Qaeda in carrying out the attacks. In doing so, plaintiffs invoked a terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)--but there was uncertainty as to whether, even in the absence of an immunity bar, Congress had provided a federal cause of action for claimants such as plaintiffs. In 2008, however, Congress amended FSIA to provide an express cause of action and directed that claims such as plaintiffs’ be treated “as if ” they had been originally filed under the new cause of action. Congress also made punitive damages available under the new cause of action and authorized the filing of new claims that arose out of the same incident as earlier claims. Plaintiffs amended their complaint accordingly and, following a bench trial, obtained a multi-billion dollar damages award, including more than $4 billion in punitive damages. Sudan challenged the punitive damages award on appeal, arguing that Congress had not expressly authorized punitive damages based on conduct that predated its 2008 legislation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed, but the Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari to consider whether, consistent with its decision in Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004), FSIA applies retroactively, thereby permitting recovery of punitive damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c) against foreign states for terrorist activities occurring prior to the passage of the current version of the statute. To discuss the case, we have Roger Alford, Professor of Law at the University of Notre DameAs always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On Feb. 24, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Opati v. Republic of Sudan, a case involving a dispute over whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act authorizes punitive damages for terrorist activities that took place before Congress amended the statute to provide an express cause of action contemplating such damages. Following the 1998 al Qaeda bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, victims and their families brought suit against the Republic of Sudan, alleging that it had assisted al Qaeda in carrying out the attacks. In doing so, plaintiffs invoked a terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)--but there was uncertainty as to whether, even in the absence of an immunity bar, Congress had provided a federal cause of action for claimants such as plaintiffs. In 2008, however, Congress amended FSIA to provide an express cause of action and directed that claims such as plaintiffs’ be treated “as if ” they had been originally filed under the new cause of action. Congress also made punitive damages available under the new cause of action and authorized the filing of new claims that arose out of the same incident as earlier claims. Plaintiffs amended their complaint accordingly and, following a bench trial, obtained a multi-billion dollar damages award, including more than $4 billion in punitive damages. Sudan challenged the punitive damages award on appeal, arguing that Congress had not expressly authorized punitive damages based on conduct that predated its 2008 legislation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed, but the Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari to consider whether, consistent with its decision in Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004), FSIA applies retroactively, thereby permitting recovery of punitive damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c) against foreign states for terrorist activities occurring prior to the passage of the current version of the statute. To discuss the case, we have Roger Alford, Professor of Law at the University of Notre DameAs always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

In this clip from the latest episode of the CAFE Insider podcast, "Legal Gambits," co-hosts Preet Bharara and Anne Milgram break down the lawsuit brought by Missouri against the Chinese government over COVID-19, and legislation introduced by Republicans in Congress which would allow lawsuits against foreign governments.  Listen to the full episode with a free two-week trial of the CAFE Insider membership. REFERENCES & SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS IMMIGRATION ORDER Executive order limiting immigration in response to COVID-19, 4/22/20 Trump tweet announcing executive order suspending immigration, 4/20/20 “Trump’s temporary plan to halt immigration is part of a broader strategy, Stephen Miller says,” New York Times, 4/24/20 RICK BRIGHT REMOVAL Rick Bright’s statement on his removal from BARDA position, 4/22/20 Rep. Frank Pallone’s letter to HHS Inspector General calling for investigation of Bright matter, 4/23/20 “House to examine ouster of health official who doubted drugs Trump pushed,” New York Times, 4/23/20 “Ousting vaccine chief is going to ‘set us back,’ former FDA head says,” Politico, 4/26/20 “Vaccine expert from HHS to file whistleblower complaint,” CBS News, 4/24/20 SUING CHINA  Missouri AG’s complaint filed in Eastern District of Missouri, 4/21/20 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976, the law granting foreign states immunity  28 U.S. Code § 1605, the statute outlining the exceptions to the immunity of a foreign state Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), the law carving out an exception in FSIA for lawsuits against states who have sponsored terrorism “Suing China over coronavirus won’t help. Here’s what will work,” John Bellinger, Washington Post op-ed, 4/23/20 “Congress hands Obama first veto override,” Politico, 9/28/16 MCCONNELL STATE BANKRUPTCY COMMENTS Clip: Mitch McConnell expresses support for allowing states to go bankrupt, Hugh Hewitt radio show, 4/22/20 “McConnell takes flak after suggesting bankruptcy for states rather than bailouts,” Washington Post, 4/23/20 SUPREME COURT  Ramos v. Louisiana, the decision banning non-unanimous jury verdicts in criminal cases “Why a case about jury verdicts could spell trouble for Roe v. Wade,” Ruth Marcus, Washington Post op-ed, 4/24/20 NY Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. NYC, the decision on a now moot challenge to a NYC rule regarding the transport of firearms The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution LAUGHING CHALLENGE “Centuries-old law against cursing in public repealed by Virginia legislators,” NPR, 2/19/20

Service to a foreign state’s minister of foreign affairs, under FISA can not be to the embassy in the US.

imunities of foreign corporations are the SAME as foreign government immunity TODAY.

in re: Foreign states immunities act

The black letter law discussed in this episode is: Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, Pub. L. 104-132, §221 (1996) https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ132/html/PLAW-104publ132.htm Addition of Terrorism Exception to FSIA, 28 USC §1605(a)(7) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1605A Justice for US victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act, 34 U.S.C.§ 20144 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/20144 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 28 U.S.C. §1602-11 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title28/html/USCODE-2011-title28-partIV-chap97.htm Actions Against Foreign States, 28 U.S.C. §1330 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1330 Provision of Material Support or Resources, 18 U.S.C. §2339(A). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2339A International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, 9 June 1983, No. 21931, (Jan. 1985 - U.S. effective). https://treaties.un.org/doc/db/terrorism/english-18-5.pdf Hostage Taking, 18 U.S.C. §1203 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1203 Torture Victim Protection Act 1992 Pub. L. 102-256 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-106/pdf/STATUTE-106-Pg73.pdf Alien Tort Statute 28 USC §1350 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1350 U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or punishment, 10 December 1984. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CAT.aspx Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, No. 12325 (197). http://www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/docs/conventions/Conv2.pdf Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. §3663(a). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3663A The Schooner Exchange v. Mcfaddon, 11 U.S. 116 (1812). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/11/116/case.html US v. Klein, 80 U.S. 128 (1871). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/80/128/case.html Letelier v. Republic of Chile, 488 F.Supp. 665. (D.D.C. 1980). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/488/665/1400196/ First National City bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611 (1983). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/462/611/case.html Smith v. Libya, 101 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 1996). https://www.leagle.com/decision/1996340101f3d2391294 Princz v. Germany, 813 F.Supp. 22 (D.D.C. 1992). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/813/22/1807808/ Alejandre v. Cuba, 42 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (S.D. Fla. 1999). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/42/1317/2501671/ WAMAI et al v. REPUBLIC OF SUDAN et al, No. 1:2008cv01349 - Document 55 (D.D.C. 2011) https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008cv01349/132534/55/ 1952 Jake Tate Letter, State Department Office of Legal Counsel reprinted in 26 DEP'T ST. BULL. (1952) Pages 984-985 https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uiuo.ark:/13960/t3515kb1d?urlappend=%3Bseq=470 Steve Pelak is a partner at Holland & Hart https://www.hollandhart.com/

Public Interest Declassification Board - https://www.archives.gov/declassification/pidb Freedom of Information Act - https://www.justice.gov/oip/freedom-information-act-5-usc-552 FOIA.gov - https://www.foia.gov/ Department of the Navy v. Egan 484 U.S. 518 (1988) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/484/518/ OpEd in Washington Post - https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/08/reality-winner-isnt-a-whistleblower-or-a-victim-of-trumps-war-on-leaks/?utm_term=.a045522ee39e Espionage Act - http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=3&psid=3904 Executive Order 13526 (Classification) - https://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/cnsi-eo.html Vaughn Index definition https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2002-title32-vol5/html/CFR-2002-title32-vol5-sec701-39.htm Executive Order 12968 (Security Clearance) - https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-08-07/pdf/95-19654.pdf SF-86 - https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86-non508.pdf Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act - https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-90/pdf/STATUTE-90-Pg2891.pdf PanAm 103/Lockerbie bombing - http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/26/world/pan-am-flight-103-fast-facts/index.html Victim’s families vs. Libyan government - http://uniset.ca/other/cs5/995FSupp325.html 28 USC 1605A (Terrorism Exception to FSIA) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1605A JFK Assassination Records - https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/2017-release Mark Zaid is a founder of the Whistleblower Aid project - https://whistlebloweraid.org/ He is the managing partner of The Law Offices of Mark Zaid - http://www.markzaid.com/

In our 149th episode of the Steptoe Cyberlaw Podcast, Stewart Baker, Michael Vatis, and Meredith Rathbone discuss: Google loses its Microsoft Ireland case, probably because it would have to be called the “Google Cyberspace” case; FSB relief spurs momentary political meltdown among Washingtonians who don’t listen to the Steptoe Cyberlaw Podcast; Neil Gorsuch opines on computer searches and child porn; What’s happened to the cyber Executive Order?; The FSIA and suits against sovereign hackers; Brexit passes Commons and May promises data deal with EU; Google’s settlement approved despite cy pres objections; Austrian hotel guests inconvenienced but not imprisoned by ransomware; CFAA violations cost the Cardinals two high draft picks and $2 million. Our guest interview is with Jason Healey, Senior Research Scholar at Columbia University's School for International and Public Affairs. The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of the firm.

On December 1, 2015, the Supreme Court decided OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs. This case concerns the scope of the commercial activity exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Under this exception, sovereign immunity does not bar a lawsuit “based on a commercial activity carried on in the United States by [a] foreign state.” In this case Carol Sachs sued the Austrian national railroad when she suffered serious injuries while attempting to board an Austrian train. The question is whether Sachs’ purchase of her rail pass in the United States brought her suit within the commercial activity exception. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that it did. -- By a vote of 9-0, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, holding that Sachs’ suit was “based on” the railway’s conduct in Austria and therefore outside the FSIA’s commercial activity exception. -- To discuss the case, we have Edwin D. Williamson, who is Of Counsel at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.

On October 5, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs. This case involves a dispute regarding whether federal courts have jurisdiction over a lawsuit brought by Carol Sachs against OBB Personenverkher--the Austrian national railroad--when her legs were crushed by a train in Austria while she was using a Eurail Pass that she had purchased in the United States. -- The question before the Supreme Court is twofold: (1) whether common law principles of agency apply in determining whether an entity is an “agent” of a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA); and (2) whether, under the first clause of the commercial activity exception of the FSIA, a tort claim for personal injuries suffered in connection with travel outside of the United States is “based upon” the allegedly tortious conduct occurring outside of the United States, or the preceding sale of the ticket in the United States for the travel entirely outside the United States. -- To discuss the case, we have Edwin D. Williamson, who is Of Counsel at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.