Latest in Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
Conventional wisdom and many lower court cases hold that foreign states are not entitled to constitutionally based personal jurisdiction protections in federal courts because they are not “persons” protected by the Fifth Amendment. That reasoning is incorrect.
Ordering punitive monetary damages against foreign states undermines the goals of both the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the legal doctrine underlying it.
On Wednesday, the unnamed foreign company seeking to quash a subpoena in connection with the special counsel investigation filed a reply brief with the Supreme Court supporting its petition for certiorari. The brief is below.
The opinion, like the brief judgment previously released by the court, does not decide the important question of whether or not the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act affords immunity to foreign states and state-owned enterprises in criminal cases.
In re Grand Jury, the sealed appellate case linked to the Mueller investigation, highlights a topic of growing significance: criminal prosecutions of foreign-state owned enterprises.
Russia invoked sovereign immunity in the Democratic National Committee’s lawsuit against it.
A summary of the latest Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act case to make its way to the Supreme Court.
The argument is stronger than you think.
Whether Russia can claim immunity in the DNC’s lawsuit may turn on “where” the DNC was hacked. Precedent in the D.C. Circuit indicates that answering that question isn’t easy.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has filed suit against Russia, among other actors, for hacking and leaking DNC communications in an effort to influence the 2016 election. Are Russia and its officials entitled to foreign sovereign immunity?