Latest in FSIA
Part 3 of a three-part series on oral arguments in Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, a case that raises the question whether the U.S. government can criminally prosecute corporations owned by foreign states.
The case raises novel questions of the FSIA’s applicability, as well as the extent of foreign sovereign immunity within criminal law.
Part 2 of a three-part series on oral arguments in Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, a case that raises the question whether the U.S. government can criminally prosecute corporations owned by foreign states.
Part 1 of a three-part series on oral arguments in Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, a case that raises the question whether the U.S. government can criminally prosecute corporations owned by foreign states.
Two recent Supreme Court rulings could be consequential for the interpretation of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
Far fewer coronavirus-related lawsuits have been filed against China in the past few months than previously, an ebb that may reflect any one of several good reasons why would-be plaintiffs would want to wait before bringing a case.
As a foreign sovereign state, China can take a more creative approach to responding—or not—to lawsuits filed against it in U.S. courts concerning the coronavirus.
On Jan. 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit released its redacted opinion In re Grand Jury Subpoena, the mysterious case with apparent links to the Mueller investigation concerning an unnamed corporation (“the Corporation”) owned by an unnamed foreign country.
The Supreme Court will soon hear oral arguments in Jam v. International Finance Corp. The case, which will be argued on October 31, 2018, raises an important threshold question about the immunity of international organizations from suit in the United States. But the briefing does not provide the full answer.