Term: 2018
Docket: 16-1094
Republic Of Sudan v. Harrison
- Pro
16-1094 SUDAN V. HARRISON DECISION BELOW: 802 F.3d 399 CERT. GRANTED 6/25/2018 QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the Second Circuit erred by holding - in direct conflict with the D.C., Fifth, and Seventh Circuits and in the face of an amicus brief from the United States - that plaintiffs suing a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act may serve the foreign state under 28 U.S.C § 1608(a)(3) by mail addressed and dispatched to the head of the foreign state's ministry of foreign affairs "via" or in "care of” the foreign state's diplomatic mission in the United States, despite U.S. obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to preserve mission inviolability. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 14-121-cv
In the case of Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sudan regarding where a lawsuit should be served to a foreign government under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The plaintiffs were victims or family members of victims from terrorist attacks on USS Cole and US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that were allegedly sponsored by Sudan. They had initially won billions in damages after serving their lawsuit at the embassy of Sudan located in New York City but this was contested by Sudan which argued that it violated FSIA rules stating such notices must be sent directly to its foreign ministry based out-of-country. The Supreme Court agreed with this argument, ruling unanimously that lawsuits against foreign countries must indeed be delivered to their respective ministries' headquarters abroad as per FSIA guidelines.
In the dissenting opinion for Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the majority's interpretation of 28 U.S.C. §1608(a)(3) was incorrect and inconsistent with its text and history. He contended that a foreign state’s embassy in Washington D.C., not its mission to the United Nations in New York, should be considered as an appropriate address for service under this law. According to him, Congress intended "to channel all diplomatic communications through one point: The Department of State". Therefore, he believed that sending legal documents directly to a country's UN mission bypasses this system and could potentially lead to confusion or miscommunication between nations about important legal matters.
