Term: 2016
Docket: 15-423
Bolivarian Republic Of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co.
- Pro
15-423 VENEZUELA V. HELMERICH & PAYNE INT'L DECISION BELOW: 784 F.3d 804 GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTION 3 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CERT. GRANTED 6/28/2016 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) provides that "a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States except as provided in sections 1605 to 1607 of this chapter." 28 U.S.C. § 1604. Under the Act's expropriation exception, in pertinent part, "[a] foreign state shall not be immune * * * in any case* * * in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue." Id. § 1605(a)(3). The three questions presented in this petition concern the requirements for pleading jurisdiction under the expropriation exception. They are: 1. Whether, for purposes of determining if a plaintiff has pleaded that a foreign state has taken property "in violation of international law," the FSIA recognizes a discrimination exception to the domestic-takings rule, which holds that a foreign sovereign's taking of the property of its own national is not a violation of international law. 2. Whether, for purposes of determining if a plaintiff has pleaded that "rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue," the FSIA allows a shareholder to claim property rights in the assets of a still-existing corporation. 3. Whether the pleading standard for alleging that a case falls within the FSIA's expropriation exception is more demanding than the standard for pleading jurisdiction under the federal- question statute, which allows a jurisdictional dismissal only if the federal claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 13-7169, 13-7170, 14-7008
In the case of Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co., 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a lawsuit against a foreign government could proceed in U.S courts under an exception to sovereign immunity. The plaintiff, Helmerich & Payne (H&P), alleged that Venezuela had unlawfully expropriated its oil drilling rigs and sought compensation for their loss. The Venezuelan government argued it was immune from such lawsuits under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). However, H&P claimed an exception applied because their property was taken in violation of international law. The Supreme Court held that it is not sufficient for plaintiffs merely to make non-frivolous arguments that a foreign sovereign's actions were illegal; instead they must demonstrate there are reasonable grounds to believe this is so before proceeding with litigation against them in US courts. This decision clarified what standard should be used when determining if cases fall within FSIA exceptions and can therefore bypass normal rules on sovereign immunity.
The dissenting opinion in the case of Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co., 2016, was delivered by Justice Breyer and joined by Justices Thomas and Alito. The dissent argued that the majority's decision to require a plaintiff to demonstrate their claim is not "wholly insubstantial or frivolous" before stripping a foreign state of its immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) sets too high a bar for plaintiffs. They contended that this standard could potentially shield foreign states from lawsuits even when they have clearly violated international law, as it requires plaintiffs to provide substantial evidence at an early stage in proceedings where such evidence may be difficult to obtain without discovery processes typically available later on during litigation. Furthermore, they expressed concern that this ruling might discourage potential litigants from pursuing valid claims against foreign governments due to fear of having their cases dismissed prematurely.
