U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART IV— JURISDICTION AND VENUE › Chapter CHAPTER 97— JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITIES OF FOREIGN STATES

28 U.S.C. § 1603

Definitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
For purposes of this chapter—(a) A “foreign state”, except as used in section 1608 of this title, includes a political subdivision of a foreign state or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state as defined in subsection (b).(b) An “agency or instrumentality of a foreign state” means any entity—(1) which is a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise, and(2) which is an organ of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, or a majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is owned by a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, and(3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States as defined in section 1332 (c) and (e) of this title, nor created under the laws of any third country.(c) The “United States” includes all territory and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.(d) A “commercial activity” means either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular commercial transaction or act. The commercial character of an activity shall be determined by reference to the nature of the course of conduct or particular transaction or act, rather than by reference to its purpose.(e) A “commercial activity carried on in the United States by a foreign state” means commercial activity carried on by such state and having substantial contact with the United States.(Added Pub. L. 94–583, § 4(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2892; amended Pub. L. 109–2, § 4(b)(2), Feb. 18, 2005, 119 Stat. 12.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2005—Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 109–2 substituted “(e)” for “(d)”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2005 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 109–2 applicable to any civil action commenced on or after Feb. 18, 2005, see section 9 of Pub. L. 109–2, set out as a note under section 1332 of this title.

Effective Date

Section effective 90 days after Oct. 21, 1976, see section 8 of Pub. L. 94–583, set out as a note under section 1602 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,173 cases (164 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468 (2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468 (2003). · cites it 11× “It provides that "[a]ny civil action brought in a State court against a foreign state as defined in [ 28 U. S. C. § 1603 (a)] may be removed by the foreign state to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is…”
Rote v. Zel Custom Mfg. LLC, 816 F.3d 383 (6th Cir. 2016). · cites it 7× “607, 611 (1992) (citation omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1603 (a)–(b), 1604. Under the Act, a foreign state is “immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States” unless one of the statutory exceptions applies.”
Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349 (1993). · cites it 8× “Brief for Respondents 3; see 28 U. S. C. §§ 1603 (a), (b) (term "`foreign state' " includes "`an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state' ").”
Yousuf v. Samantar, 552 F.3d 371 (4th Cir. 2009). · cites it 20× “" 28 U.S.C. § 1603 (a). [2] A majority of the courts considering *376 the scope of "agency or instrumentality" have concluded that an individual foreign official acting within the scope of his official duties qualifies as an "agency or instrumentality of a foreign state.”
Rosalie Simon v. Repub. of Hungary, 812 F.3d 127 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 6× “The Hungarian defendants argued as alternate grounds for dismissal: that they were immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1603 et seq.; that the case presented a non-justiciable political question; and that the case should be dismissed…”
Funk v. Belneftekhim, 861 F.3d 354 (2d Cir. 2017). · cites it 5× “In opposition, plaintiffs argued that defendants had failed to carry their burden to make a prima facie showing that BNTK was indeed an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1603 (b). Plaintiffs also renewed their motion for default…”
Merlini v. Canada, 926 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2019). · cites it 11× “(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1603 (d)). As we have explained, however, "the question is not whether the foreign - 13 - government [was] acting with a profit motive or instead with the aim of fulfilling uniquely sovereign objectives," but "[r]ather, the issue is whether the particular…”
Belhas v. Ya'Alon, 515 F.3d 1279 (D.C. Cir. 2008). · cites it 9× “3d at 671 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1603 (b); Chuidian v. Philippine Nat'l Bank, 912 F.”
Jam v. Int'l Fin. Corp., 139 S. Ct. 759 (2019). · cites it 5× “, 28 U. S. C. §§1603 , 1605(a)(2). Pp. 13–15.”
Carol Sachs v. Repub. of Austria, 737 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 20× “(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1603 (d)). “In determining whether an act or activity is commercial, we must look to its nature, not its purpose.”
Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224 (2007). · cites it 4× “" 28 U.S.C. § 1603 (b)(2). When we granted certiorari, however, we asked the parties also to address whether the Ninth Circuit had appellate jurisdiction in light of 28 U.”
David De Csepel v. Repub. of Hungary, 859 F.3d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2017). · cites it 6× “, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1603 (a)–(b) (defining the terms); 1606 (making punitive damages available against agencies and instrumentalities but not foreign states); 1610 (establishing different procedures for property execution).”
Show all 1,173 citing cases →
— 28 U.S.C. § 1603(a) — 9 cases
Telcordia Tech Inc, in the Matter of the Arbitration of Certain Controversies Between v. Telkom Sa Ltd, 458 F.3d 172 (3rd Cir. 2006).
Leutwyler v. Off. of Her Majesty Queen Rania Al-Abdullah, 184 F. Supp. 2d 277 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
Virginia Ex Rel. Kilgore v. Bulgartabac Holding Grp., 360 F. Supp. 2d 791 (E.D. Va. 2005).
Marastro Compania Naviera, S.A. v. Canadian Mar. Carriers, Ltd., 959 F.2d 49 (5th Cir. 1992).
Filler v. Hanvitt Bank, 378 F.3d 213 (2d Cir. 2004).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1603(b) — 7 cases
Telcordia Tech Inc, in the Matter of the Arbitration of Certain Controversies Between v. Telkom Sa Ltd, 458 F.3d 172 (3rd Cir. 2006).
Cassirer v. Kingdom of Spain, 461 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (C.D. Cal. 2006).
Am. Int'l Grp., Inc. v. Islamic Repub., 493 F. Supp. 522 (D.D.C. 1980).
Kato v. Ishihara, 239 F. Supp. 2d 359 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
Badar v. Swissport USA, Inc. (E.D.N.Y 2020).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1603(b)(2) — 1 case
Uni-Top Asia Inv. Ltd. v. Sinopec Int'l Petroleum Expl. & Prod. Corp. (D.D.C. 2022).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1603(d) — 3 cases
Genetic Veterinary Sciences v. Laboklin Gmbh & Co. Kg, 933 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Goethe House New York, German Cultural Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 685 F. Supp. 427 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Med. Ctr. v. Hellenic Repub., 877 F.2d 574 (7th Cir. 1989).
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.