Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co.
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 1, 2017 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- May 1, 2017
- Term
- October Term 2016
- Vote
- 8–0
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA or Act), provides, with specified exceptions, that a "foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States...." 28 U.S.C. § 1604. One of the jurisdictional exceptions-the expropriation exception-says that "[a] foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case ... (3) in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue and that property ... is owned or operated by an agency or instrumentality of the foreign state ... engaged in a commercial activity in the United States." § 1605(a)(3). The question here concerns the phrase "case ... in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue." Does this phrase mean that, to defeat sovereign immunity, a party need only make a "nonfrivolous" argument that the case falls within the scope of the exception? Once made, does the existence of that nonfrivolous argument mean that the court retains jurisdiction over the case until the court decides, say, the merits of the case? Or does a more rigorous jurisdictional standard apply? To put the question more generally: What happens in a case where the party seeking to rely on the expropriation exception makes a…
Excerpt of a 31,071-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.