28 U.S.C. § 1602
Findings and declaration of purpose
The Congress finds that the determination by United States courts of the claims of foreign states to immunity from the jurisdiction of such courts would serve the interests of justice and would protect the rights of both foreign states and litigants in United States courts. Under international law, states are not immune from the jurisdiction of foreign courts insofar as their commercial activities are concerned, and their commercial property may be levied upon for the satisfaction of judgments rendered against them in connection with their commercial activities. Claims of foreign states to immunity should henceforth be decided by courts of the United States and of the States in conformity with the principles set forth in this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 830
cases (123 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Repub. of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004).
Repub. of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004). “in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue," § 1605(a)(3), applies to claims that, like respondent's, are based on conduct that occurred before the Act's enactment, and even before the United States adopted the so-called "restrictive theory"…”
Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224 (2007). “When Congress acted through the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp.”
Jam v. Int'l Fin. Corp., 139 S. Ct. 759 (2019). “In 1952, the State Department adopt- ed a more restrictive theory of foreign sovereign immunity, which Congress subsequently codified in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U. S. C. §1602 . The FSIA gives foreign sovereign gov- ernments presumptive immunity from…”
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004). “677, 701-702 (2004) (discussing the State Department's use of statements of interest in cases involving the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U. S. C. § 1602 et seq. ). [22] Article nine provides that "[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention,"…”
Rote v. Zel Custom Mfg. LLC, 816 F.3d 383 (6th Cir. 2016). “In support of its motion, DGFM argued that, as an instrumentality of the Republic of Argentina, it is immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA” or “Act”), 28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq. In response, Plaintiffs argue that the “commercial activity” exception to…”
Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305 (2010). “See 28 U. S. C. §1602 . To make matters worse, the Court itself notes this statutory declaration of purpose twice earlier, in the body of its opinion, see ante, at 6, 13.”
Mohamad v. Palestinian Auth., 132 S. Ct. 1702 (2012). “” Petitioners concede that foreign states may not be sued under the Act—namely, that the Act does not create an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U. S. C. §1602 et seq., which renders foreign sovereigns largely immune from suits in U.”
Goel v. Bunge, Ltd., 820 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 2016). “Sovereign Immunities Act, ■28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq, — which was not addressed below and which is far afield from the issue of timeliness — for the District Court to consider in the first instance.”
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005). “Before the state-court trial, SABIC moved to dismiss the federal suit, alleging, inter alia, immunity under the Foreign *290 Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U. S. C. § 1602 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp.”
Cassirer v. Kingdom of Spain, 616 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2010). “Spain and the Foundation moved to dismiss, asserting, among other things, sovereign immunity pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. § 1602 , et seq. The FSIA makes a foreign state immune from suit in the courts of the United States unless an exception…”
Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Found., 596 U.S. 107 (2022). “Argued January 18, 2022—Decided April 21, 2022 The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), 28 U. S. C. §1602 et seq., governs whether a foreign state or instrumentality is amenable to suit in an American court.”
Repub. of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607 (1992). “This case requires us to decide whether the Republic of Argentina’s default on certain bonds issued as part of a plan to stabilize its currency was an act taken “in connection with a commercial activity” that had a “direct effect in the United States” so as to subject Argentina…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.