Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Republic of Hungary v. Simon (2024)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Republic of Hungary v. Simon
Term: 2024
Important Dates
Argued: December 3, 2024
Decided: February 21, 2025
Outcome
vacated and remanded
Vote
9-0
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson

Republic of Hungary v. Simon is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 21, 2025, during the court's October 2024-2025 term. The case was argued on December 3, 2024.

The Court vacated and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a 9-0 ruling, holding that the theory of the commingling of assets does not meet the commercial nexus criteria set forth by 28 U.S. Code §1605(a)(3). Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the court.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned the scope of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's expropriation exception. The exception involves lawsuits brought against foreign governments, or foreign sovereigns, for violating international law by taking property connected to commercial activities in the United States. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "1. Whether historical commingling of assets suffices to establish that proceeds of seized property have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
    "2. Whether a plaintiff must make out a valid claim that an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies at the pleading stage, rather than merely raising a plausible inference.
    "3. Whether a sovereign defendant bears the burden of producing evidence to affirmatively disprove that the proceeds of property taken in violation of international law have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act."[2]
  • The outcome: The Court vacated and remanded the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit court's decision.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.


    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[3]

    • Petitioner: Republic of Hungary, et al.
      • Legal counsel: Joshua Scott Glasgow (Phillips Lytle LLP)
    • Respondent: Rosalie Simon, et al.
      • Legal counsel: Shay Dvoretzky (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP), Charles S. Fax (Rifkin Weiner Livingston LLC), L. Marc Zell

    The following summary of the case was published by SCOTUSblog:[4]

    “ The issue at the center of Republic of Hungary v. Simon is the interpretation of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which generally bars lawsuits against foreign governments in U.S. courts but carves out an exception – known as the “expropriation exception” – when (among other things) the lawsuit involves property taken in violation of international law and there is a commercial connection between that property and the United States.


    The plaintiffs allege that the Hungarian government took their property, sold it, put the proceeds from the sales in the general state treasury, and then later used funds from the treasury in connection with the country’s commercial activities in the United States.

    A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., agreed that these allegations were enough unless the Hungarian government can show otherwise, while a federal appeals court in New York ruled that the plaintiffs needed to show a connection between the funds from the expropriated property and the commercial activity in the United States. On Monday, the justices agreed to weigh in.[5]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ 1. Whether historical commingling of assets suffices to establish that proceeds of seized property have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
    "2. Whether a plaintiff must make out a valid claim that an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies at the pleading stage, rather than merely raising a plausible inference.
    "3. Whether a sovereign defendant bears the burden of producing evidence to affirmatively disprove that the proceeds of property taken in violation of international law have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.[5]     		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[6]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[7]

    Outcome

    In a 9-0 decision, the Court vacated and remanded the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit court's decision. The Court held that the commercial nexus criteria, as outlined in 28 U.S. Code §1605(a)(3), was not met using the commingling asset theory. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the opinion of the Court.

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote:[1]

    “ For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that a commingling theory, without more, cannot satisfy the commercial nexus requirement of §1605(a)(3). The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

    It is so ordered.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2024-2025

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 7, 2024. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[8]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY ET AL. v. SIMON ET AL. - No. 23–867," February 21, 2025
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "23-867 HUNGARY V. SIMON," June 24, 2024
    3. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "23-867 - Republic of Hungary v. Simon," accessed July 9, 2024
    4. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Court adds seven cases to next term’s docket," June 24, 2024
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued December 3, 2024
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued December 3, 2024
    8. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Republic_of_Hungary_v._Simon_(2024)&oldid=10380239"