Republic of Sudan v. Harrison

Last updated

Republic of Sudan v. Harrison
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 7, 2018
Decided March 26, 2019
Full case nameRepublic of Sudan v. Rick Harrison
Docket no. 16-1094
Citations587 U.S. ___ ( more )
139 S. Ct. 1048; 203 L. Ed. 2d 433
Case history
PriorHarrison v. Republic of Sudan, 802 F.3d 399 (2d Cir. 2015); rehearing denied, 838 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2016); cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 2671 (2018).
Holding
Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, civil complaints and summons must be served directly to the foreign minister's office in the minister's home country, not to their home country's embassy within the United States.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, joined by Roberts, Breyer, Ginsburg, Gorsuch, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Sotomayor
DissentThomas
Laws applied
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term. The Court held that civil service of a lawsuit against the government of Sudan was invalid because the civil complaints and summons had been sent to the Embassy of Sudan in Washington, D.C. rather than to the Sudanese Foreign Minister in Khartoum.

Contents

This case is notable because it arose out of the bombing of the USS Cole, a terrorist attack perpetrated by Al-Qaeda in 2000. [1] The United States federal government's decision to file a friend of the court brief supporting Sudan against a lawsuit filed by injured United States service members also sparked controversy. [2] The administration's amicus curiae brief condemned the terrorist attack but argued that allowing service of process at embassies would undermine the principle of mission inviolability. [3]

Background

In October 2000, the USS Cole, a United States Navy destroyer, was attacked by suicide bombers in the port of Aden in Yemen. The blast killed 17 American sailors and injured 39 others. [4] Though the attack was attributed to the terrorist group Al-Qaeda, family members of the slain sailors filed a lawsuit against the government of Sudan, accusing it of complicity and providing material support to the attackers. [5]

Foreign governments are generally immune from lawsuits in United States courts; however, an exception exists under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. This law allows for lawsuits against entities listed by the US State Department as state sponsors of terrorism.

In addition, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act of 2016 allows for punitive damages against state sponsors of terrorism, and can be applied retroactively to incidents that took place before the law was enacted. [1] [6]

In lower courts

In July 2004, family members of the sailors filed a lawsuit against Sudan for more than $100 million, alleging the Sudanese government provided support to the attackers and were complicit in the deaths of their relatives on the USS Cole. [5] Though the doctrine of sovereign immunity generally bars lawsuits against foreign governments in US courts, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act creates an exception for countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism. [1] [6]

In March 2007, the district court found in favor of the sailors' families, ruling that Sudan was liable for the USS Cole attack after a two-day bench trial. The families sought up to $105 million in damages, but the damages were reduced to $13.4 million ($8 million in compensatory damages as well as $5.4 million in interest) as a result of the Death on the High Seas Act, which limited damages by disallowing emotional distress claims. [5] [7]

In 2010, a second lawsuit was filed against Sudan by 15 injured sailors and their families, seeking compensatory damages as well as punitive damages, which are permitted retroactively under the 2008 Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). The complaint and civil summons were filed at the Sudanese embassy in Washington, DC, where they were accepted by a staffer at the embassy. In 2012, the plaintiffs in this suit prevailed in a default judgment and were awarded close to $315 million in compensatory and punitive damages following Sudan's failure to appear. [5] To satisfy the claim, a federal judge ordered several banks (BNP Paribas SA, Credit Agricole SA and Mashreqbank PSC) to turn over Sudanese assets held in their custody.

Sudan then appealed the decision to United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2014, claiming that proper procedures were not followed in serving the initial complaint in the 2010 case. [1] [5]

The case was heard by a three-judge panel comprising Circuit Court judges Denny Chin and Gerard E. Lynch as well as District Court Judge Edward R. Korman. Writing for a unanimous panel, Chin upheld the district court's ruling. [8] Sudan appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted a writ of certiorari in 2018. [9] Kannon Shanmugam, then a partner at the DC law firm Williams & Connolly, argued the case on behalf of Harrison. Christopher Curran of the New York City law firm White & Case, represented the government of Sudan. [10] Assistant U.S. Solicitor General Erica Ross appeared on behalf of the United States government, presenting the United States's perspective in support of Sudan.

Supreme court opinion

Majority opinion

In an 8-to-1 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) when they sent their complaint and civil summons to the Sudanese embassy in DC rather than directly to the Sudanese Foreign Minister in Khartoum. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito ruled that the most 'natural' reading of the text of the FSIA was that the civil process had to be made directly to the foreign minister's office in the foreign state, and that the correct address for the foreign minister was the location that the foreign minister lived or worked—not the embassy. Alito's opinion also noted that this interpretation is consistent with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations as well as the United States's own policy of not accepting service at American embassies when the US government is sued overseas. [11]

Dissent

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas stated that, in the absence of an indication to the contrary, an embassy should be appropriate places to serve legal paper's to that country's foreign minister. [11]

Effect

As a result of this opinion, the Second Circuit's ruling was reversed and the plaintiffs' award was overturned. [6] The plaintiffs were however permitted to file suit again, either by serving the papers directly to the Sudanese foreign minister in Khartoum or asking the United States Secretary of State to do so via diplomatic channels. [12]

In February 2020, Sudan announced that it would settle the case with the USS Cole victims for $30 million. Though Sudan continues to deny any involvement with the attack, Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok stated that it would make the payment in order to normalize relations with the rest of the world and meet the US's conditions for removal from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. [13] Sudan's announcement follows the ouster of its former president Omar al-Bashir and the inauguration of a new interim ruling council headed by Hamdok, as well as negotiations between Sudan and the United States to reestablish diplomatic relationships. [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine whereby a sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution, strictly speaking in modern texts in its own courts. A similar, stronger rule as regards foreign courts is named state immunity.

USS <i>Cole</i> bombing Al-Qaeda bombing of USS Cole

The USS Cole bombing was a suicide attack by the terrorist group al-Qaeda against USS Cole, a guided missile destroyer of the United States Navy, on 12 October 2000, while she was being refueled in Yemen's Aden harbor.

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act United States law

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976 is a United States law, codified at Title 28, §§ 1330, 1332, 1391(f), 1441(d), and 1602–1611 of the United States Code, that establishes the limitations as to whether a foreign sovereign nation may be sued in U.S. courts—federal or state. It also establishes specific procedures for service of process, attachment of property and execution of judgment in proceedings against a foreign state. The FSIA provides the exclusive basis and means to bring a lawsuit against a foreign sovereign in the United States. It was signed into law by United States President Gerald Ford on October 21, 1976.

The doctrine and rules of state immunity concern the protection which a state is given from being sued in the courts of other states. The rules relate to legal proceedings in the courts of another state, not in a state's own courts. The rules developed at a time when it was thought to be an infringement of a state's sovereignty to bring proceedings against it or its officials in a foreign country.

1998 United States embassy bombings Attacks on US Embassies in two countries in 1998

The 1998 United States embassy bombings were attacks that occurred on August 7, 1998. More than 200 people were killed in nearly simultaneous truck bomb explosions in two East African cities, one at the United States Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, the other at the United States Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya.

Permanent Mission of India v. City of New York, 551 U.S. 193 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court construed the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to allow a federal court to hear a lawsuit brought by the City of New York to recover unpaid property taxes levied against India and Mongolia, both of which own real estate in New York.

Sudan–United States relations Bilateral relations

Sudan–United States relations are the bilateral relations between Sudan and the United States. The United States government has been critical of Sudan's human rights record and has dispatched a strong UN Peacekeeping force to Darfur. Relations between both countries in recent years have greatly improved, with Sudan's post-revolutionary government compensating American victims of al-Qaeda terror attacks, the removal of Sudan from the State Department's blacklist of state sponsors of terrorism and the United States Congress having reinstated Sudan's sovereign immunity in December 2020.

Sovereign immunity in the United States Legal protection of federal, state and tribal governments

In United States law, the federal government as well as state and tribal governments generally enjoy sovereign immunity, also known as governmental immunity, from lawsuits. Local governments in most jurisdictions enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides foreign governments, including state-owned companies, with a related form of immunity—state immunity—that shields them from lawsuits except in relation to certain actions relating to commercial activity in the United States. The principle of sovereign immunity in US law was inherited from the English common law legal maxim rex non potest peccare, meaning "the king can do no wrong." In some situations, sovereign immunity may be waived by law.

Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991

The Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 is a statute that allows for the filing of civil suits in the United States against individuals who, acting in an official capacity for any foreign nation, committed torture and/or extrajudicial killing. The statute requires a plaintiff to show exhaustion of local remedies in the location of the crime, to the extent that such remedies are "adequate and available." Plaintiffs may be U.S. citizens or non-U.S. citizens.

Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case that found that a law which only applied to a specific case, identified by docket number, and eliminated all of the defenses one party had raised does not violate the separation of powers in the United States Constitution between the legislative (Congress) and judicial branches of government. The plaintiffs, in the case had initially obtained judgments against Iran for its role in supporting state-sponsored terrorism, particularly the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings and 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, and sought execution against a bank account in New York held, through European intermediaries, on behalf of Bank Markazi, the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The plaintiffs obtained court orders preventing the transfer of funds from the account in 2008 and initiated their lawsuit in 2010. Bank Markazi raised several defenses, including that the account was not an asset of the bank, but rather an asset of its European intermediary, under both New York state property law and §201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. In response to concerns that existing laws were insufficient for the account to be used to settle the judgments, Congress added an amendment to a 2012 bill, codified after enactment as 22 U.S.C. § 8772, that identified the pending lawsuit by docket number, applied only to the assets in the identified case, and effectively abrogated every legal basis available to Bank Markazi to prevent the plaintiffs from executing their claims against the account. Bank Markazi then argued that § 8772 was an unconstitutional breach of the separation of power between the legislative and judicial branches of government, because it effectively directed a particular result in a single case without changing the generally applicable law. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit both upheld the constitutionality of § 8772 and cleared the way for the plaintiffs to execute their judgments against the account, which held about $1.75 billion in cash.

Iranian frozen assets in international accounts are calculated to be worth between $100 billion and $120 billion. Almost $1.973 billion of Iran's assets are frozen in the United States. According to the Congressional Research Service, in addition to the money locked up in foreign bank accounts, Iran's frozen assets include real estate and other property. The estimated value of Iran's real estate in the U.S. and their accumulated rent is $50 million. Besides the assets frozen in the U.S., some parts of Iran's assets are frozen around the world by the United Nations.

Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act United States law vetoed by President Obama but overridden

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) is a law enacted by the United States Congress that narrows the scope of the legal doctrine of foreign sovereign immunity. It amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act in regards to civil claims against a foreign state for injuries, death, or damages from an act of international terrorism.

The Flatow Amendment is an amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 passed in 1996, which allows American victims of terrorism to sue countries that are designated as terrorism sponsors. The legislation establishes that foreign state sponsors of terrorism “shall be liable to a United States national … for personal injury or death caused by acts of that [party]….”

2019–2024 Sudanese transition to democracy Political transition to democracy following the overthrow of Omar Bashir in 2019

The 2019–2024 Sudanese transition to democracy is an ongoing democratic transition in Sudan that began in July 2019.

Jam v. International Finance Corp., 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term. The Supreme Court ruled that international organizations, such as the World Bank Group's financing arm, the International Finance Corporation, can be sued in US federal courts for conduct arising from their commercial activities. It specifically held that international organizations shared the same sovereign immunity as foreign governments. This was a reversal from existing jurisprudence, which held that international organizations had near-absolute immunity from lawsuits under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the International Organizations Immunities Act.

Opati v. Republic of Sudan, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act with its 2008 amendments, whether plaintiffs in federal lawsuits against foreign countries may seek punitive damages for cause of actions prior to enactment of the amended law, with the specific case dealing with victims and their families from the 1998 United States embassy bombings. The Court ruled unanimously in May 2020 that punitive damages can be sought from foreign nations in such cases for preenactment conduct.

<i>Cicippio-Puleo v. Islamic Republic of Iran</i> 2004 legal case

Cicippio-Puleo v. Islamic Republic of Iran was a 2004 case in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit related to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The DC Circuit Court ruled that while 1996 amendments in FSIA made exceptions from sovereign immunity for states known for supporting state-sponsored terrorism, as listed by the State Department, foreign nations were still immune from private cause of action, preventing lawsuits from private individuals levied at the state based on such terrorism. As a result of this ruling, Congress significantly amended FSIA in 2008 to greatly expand the exceptions from sovereign immunity for state-sponsored terrorism and specifically allowing for causes of actions against foreign countries.

Marik String American lawyer

Marik String is an American attorney, national security expert, and U.S. Navy officer, who served as Acting Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State from 2019 to 2021.

The Israel–Sudan normalization agreement is an agreement that took place on October 23, 2020, whereby Israel and Sudan agreed that they will normalize relations. It is not clear if the deal establishes full diplomatic relations between the two nations. According to Axios reporting on March 10, 2021, "While Israel has presented Sudan with a draft agreement for establishing diplomatic relations, the Sudanese want an endorsement from the Biden administration." The agreement came after the agreements of Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates signed with Israel in September 2020. Unlike the latter two, Sudan had sent troops to fight against Israel in major Arab-Israeli wars and considered Israel an enemy state.

<i>Acree v. Republic of Iraq</i> United States legal case

Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 370 F.3d 41, was a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. U.S. military personnel who had been tortured by Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War sued for damages, arguing that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) made state sponsors of terror liable. Iraq never contested the lawsuit, but the U.S. federal government intervened. The Court of Appeals ultimately decided against the plaintiffs, saying that the FSIA did not create new causes of action against foreign states. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the plaintiffs' appeal.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Stempel, Jonathan (September 22, 2017). "USS Cole victims can get Sudan assets, over U.S. objection: U.S. court". Reuters. Retrieved November 25, 2019.
  2. ↑ Barnes, Robert (November 4, 2018). "USS Cole victims opposed at Supreme Court by unlikely partners: Sudan and US". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 25, 2019.
  3. ↑ Liptak, Adam (October 29, 2018). "In Ill-Timed Brief, Saudi Arabia Seeks to Protect Its Consulates". The New York Times. Retrieved February 10, 2020.
  4. ↑ "USS Cole Bombing". FBI. November 25, 2019. Retrieved November 25, 2019.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 "USS Cole Bombing Fast Facts". CNN. October 5, 2019. Retrieved November 25, 2019.
  6. 1 2 3 Morris, Jessy (March 25, 2019). "Republic of Sudan v. Harrison". Willamette Law School. Retrieved November 25, 2019.
  7. ↑ Hall, Andrew (March 14, 2007). "Judge:Sudan responsible for USS Cole attack". NBC. Retrieved November 25, 2019.
  8. ↑ Harrison v. Republic of Sudan, 802 F.3d 399 (2d Cir. 2015); rehearing denied, 838 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2016).
  9. ↑ Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, 138 S. Ct. 2671 (2018).
  10. ↑ Weiss, Debra Cassens (November 8, 2018). "How to sue a foreign government? US sides with Sudan in Supreme Court review of USS Cole judgment". ABA. Retrieved November 25, 2019.
  11. 1 2 Howe, Amy (March 26, 2019). "Opinion Analysis". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved November 25, 2019.
  12. ↑ Stohr, Greg (March 26, 2019). "Supreme Court Tosses $315 Million Bombing Award Against Sudan". Bloomberg News. Retrieved November 25, 2019.
  13. ↑ Elbagir, Nima; Abdallah, Yassir; AlTaher, Nada (February 13, 2020). "Sudan will pay $30 million to families of USS Cole attack victims, its leaders say". CNN. Retrieved February 13, 2020.
  14. ↑ Latif Dahir, Abdi (February 13, 2020). "Sudan Says It Agrees to Compensate Families of U.S.S. Cole Bombing". The New York Times. Retrieved February 13, 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.