Opati v. Republic of Sudan
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 18, 2020 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- May 18, 2020
- Term
- October Term 2019
- Vote
- 8–0
- Majority author
- Justice Gorsuch
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice GORSUCH delivered the opinion of the Court. In 1998, al Qaeda operatives simultaneously detonated truck bombs outside the United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Hundreds died, thousands were injured. In time, victims and their family members sued the Republic of Sudan in federal court, alleging that it had assisted al Qaeda in perpetrating the attacks. After more than a decade of motions practice, intervening legislative amendments, and a trial, the plaintiffs proved Sudan's role in the attacks and established their entitlement to compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, however, Sudan argued, and the court agreed, that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act barred the punitive damages award. It is that decision we now review and, ultimately, vacate. * The starting point for nearly any dispute touching on foreign sovereign immunity lies in Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon , 7 Cranch 116, 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812). There, Chief Justice Marshall explained that foreign sovereigns do not enjoy an inherent right to be held immune from suit in American courts: "The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself." Id., at 136. Still, Chief Justice Marshall continued, many countries had declined to exercise jurisdiction over foreign sovereigns in cases involving foreign…
Excerpt of a 22,574-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.