Latest in Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on “the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Coronavirus, and Addressing China’s Culpability”—and the proceedings demonstrated that this corner of foreign relations law has become a political lightning rod.
I have an op-ed in today’s Washington Post arguing that lifting China's immunity would be a mistake. Here are some excerpts.
In all the debate over the Justice Against Sponsored Terrorism Act (JASTA), the hardest argument to ignore has been from the victims of the September 11th attack. The moral and political clout of this group is unquestionably why a Congress that cannot pass a routine budget was able to overwhelmingly override a presidential veto to ensure that JASTA became law. On its face, the legislation was held up as the only means of providing victims of the September 11th attack the ability to hale foreign governments, such as Saudi Arabia, into court for their purported complicity.
Jack has highlighted his and Curt Bradley's excellent op-ed in the New York Times this morning explaining the negative consequences to amending the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to allow Saudi Arabia and other countries to be sued for acts of international terrorism.