Term: 2020
Docket: 18-1447
Republic Of Hungary v. Simon
- Pro
18-1447 REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY V. SIMON DECISION BELOW: 911 F.3d 1172 LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 CERT. GRANTED 7/2/2020 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. May the district court abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for reasons of international comity, where former Hungarian nationals have sued the nation of Hungary to recover the value of property lost in Hungary during World War II, and where the plaintiffs made no attempt to exhaust local Hungarian remedies? 2. In a forum non conveniens analysis, (a) is the district court required to defer to plaintiffs' choice of a U.S. forum where the case's sole connection to the United States is that some named plaintiffs (representing a putative worldwide class) became naturalized citizens after the time relevant to the complaint; and (b) is the district court permitted to defer to a foreign sovereign defendant's comity interest in hosting claims in its own courts, where plaintiffs allege the sovereign defendant harmed its own nationals on its own soil and plaintiffs have not exhausted local remedies? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 17-7146
In the case of Republic of Hungary v. Simon, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that foreign nations cannot be sued in American courts for violations committed against their own citizens on their own soil. The plaintiffs were a group of Hungarian Holocaust survivors who sought compensation from Hungary and its state-owned railway company for property confiscations during World War II. They argued that these actions constituted genocide and thus fell under an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which generally bars lawsuits against foreign governments in U.S courts. However, the court unanimously held that FSIA's expropriation exception did not apply because it requires both taking property rights "in violation of international law" and having commercial activity linked to those taken properties within United States jurisdiction - conditions not met by this case as per Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion writing for the court. The justices suggested plaintiffs should seek resolution through diplomatic channels or litigation in Hungary itself rather than pursuing legal action in America.
In the dissenting opinion for Republic of Hungary v. Simon, Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The dissent argued that FSIA does not provide a domestic legal remedy for international law violations and should not be used to bypass traditional channels of diplomatic negotiation and international tribunals. They contended that allowing U.S courts to adjudicate these claims undermines foreign relations and infringes on executive branch prerogatives in conducting foreign policy. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential retaliation from other nations against American citizens or government if U.S courts are perceived as overstepping their bounds internationally. Lastly, they pointed out that Congress has already established specific exceptions within FSIA where it deemed appropriate; thus implying any further exceptions should also come from legislative action rather than judicial interpretation.
