Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

Republic of Sudan v. Harrison

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Republic of Sudan v. Harrison
Term: 2018
Important Dates
Argument: November 7, 2018
Decided: March 26, 2019
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
8-1
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh
Dissenting
Clarence Thomas

Republic of Sudan v. Harrison is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 7, 2018, during the court's 2018-2019 term. The court reversed and remanded the ruling of the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals, holding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U. S. C. §1608(a)(3) requires plaintiffs suing a foreign state to send a mailing directly to the foreign minister's office in the foreign state. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.[1][2][3]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: In 2000, the USS Cole was bombed while it was in Yemen. The families of the injured service members filed a lawsuit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) against the government of Sudan for its alleged involvement in the attack. Under the law, plaintiffs can have a clerk of the U.S. court serve the head of the ministry of foreign affairs, which the plaintiffs in this case did. However, they did so at the Sudanese embassy in Washington, rather than at the foreign ministry in Sudan. The Sudanese government argued the plaintiffs had to file their complaint in Sudan. The 2nd Circuit Court ruled the plaintiffs met the requirements of the law and denied Sudan’s request for a rehearing.
  • The issue: 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.[4]
  • The outcome: The court reversed and remanded the ruling of the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals, holding that §1608(a)(3) of the FSIA requires plaintiffs suing a foreign state to send a mailing directly to the foreign minister's office in the foreign state.[2][3]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[5]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • March 26, 2019: U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the 2nd Circuit's ruling
    • November 7, 2018: Oral argument
    • June 25, 2018: U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear case
    • March 9, 2018: Petition filed with U.S. Supreme Court
    • September 22, 2018: The 2nd Circuit Court denied Sudan’s request for a rehearing en banc

    Background

    In 2000, the USS Cole was bombed while it was in the Port of Aden in Yemen. The families of service members injured in the bombing claimed Sudan supported al Qaeda’s efforts to attack the USS Cole. They filed a lawsuit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) against the government of Sudan for its alleged involvement. FSIA is "a federal law that usually bars lawsuits against foreign nations in U.S. courts but also contains an exception (among others) for countries, like Sudan, that have been designated as state sponsors of terrorism," according to SCOTUSblog. Under the law, plaintiffs can have a clerk of the U.S. court serve the head of the ministry of foreign affairs, which the plaintiffs in this case did. However, they did so at the Sudanese embassy in Washington rather than at the foreign ministry in Sudan.[6][7]

    The United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs met the requirements of the law and denied Sudan’s request for a rehearing en banc. The Sudanese government then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the plaintiffs had to send their complaint to the ministry of foreign affairs in the foreign nation’s seat of government. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on June 25, 2018.[6][7]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[4]

    Questions 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.

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[8]

    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[9]

    Outcome

    Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the court. The court reversed and remanded the ruling of the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals, holding that §1608(a)(3) of the FSIA requires plaintiffs suing a foreign state to send a mailing directly to the foreign minister's office in the foreign state.[2][3]

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Justice Alito wrote, "We interpret §1608(a)(3) as it is most naturally understood: A service packet must be addressed and dispatched to the foreign minister at the minister’s office in the foreign state."

    Alito emphasized that the FSIA requires a legal summons and complaint be "addressed and dispatched" to the foreign minister.[3][10]

    “ Since a foreign nation’s embassy in the United States is neither the residence nor the usual place of business of that nation’s foreign minister and is not a place where the minister can customarily be found, the most common understanding of the minister’s "address" is inconsistent with the interpretation of §1608(a)(3) adopted by the court below and advanced by respondents.


    A person who wishes to "dispatch" a letter to X will generally send it directly to X at a place where X is customarily found. The sender will not "dispatch" the letter in a roundabout way, such as by directing it to a third party who, it is hoped, will then send it on to the intended recipient.[11]

    		”

    Alito referenced other provisions in §1608 that support the court's interpretation of §1608(a)(3). He also held that the court's interpretation "has the virtue of avoiding potential tension with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations."[3][10]

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. In his dissent, Thomas said he believed the plaintiffs complied with the FSIA because the Sudanese Embassy did not decline the service packet addressed to the foreign minister. Thomas wrote:[3][10]

    “ The FSIA neither specifies nor precludes the use of any particular address. Instead, the statute requires only that the packet be sent to a particular person—"the head of the ministry of foreign affairs." ... Given the unique role that embassies play in facilitating communications between states, a foreign state’s embassy in Washington, D. C., is, absent an indication to the contrary, a place where a U. S. litigant can serve the state’s foreign minister.[11] ”

    Text of the opinion

    • Read the full opinion here.

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "16-1094 Republic of Sudan v. Harrison," accessed October 28, 2018
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 SCOTUSblog, "Republic of Sudan v. Harrison," accessed March 28, 2019
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Supreme Court of the United States, Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, March 26, 2019
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "16-1094 Republic of Sudan v. Harrison," accessed October 28, 2018
    5. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Republic of Sudan v. Harrison," accessed October 28, 2018
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 SCOTUSblog, "Court sends battles over services for same-sex couples, North Carolina gerrymandering back to lower courts (Updated)," June 25, 2018
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Oyez, "Republic of Sudan v. Harrison," accessed October 28, 2018
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, argued November 7, 2018
    9. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, argued November 7, 2018
    10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 SCOTUSblog, "Opinion analysis: Court rules for Sudan in dispute over service in USS Cole lawsuit," March 26, 2019
    11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Republic_of_Sudan_v._Harrison&oldid=9117302"