Last month, in Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, 141 S. Ct. 703 (2021), the United States Supreme Court revisited and narrowed the scope of the expropriation exception to sovereign immunity set forth in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). Under the FSIA, foreign sovereign nations, as well as their political subdivisions and agencies and instrumentalities, are presumed to be immune from suit in U.S. courts, with a limited number of exceptions.
Under the FSIA, courts may find that foreign states are not immune from litigation in U.S. courts under any one of the following scenarios:
- The foreign state waives its immunity explicitly or implicitly;
- Commercial activities by the foreign state occur in the United States or directly affect the United States, which is known as the commercial activity exception;
- Property taken in violation of international law is at issue, which is known as the expropriation exception;
- Rights in property in the U.S. acquired by succession or gift or rights in immovable property situated in the United States are at issue
- Money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury, death or damage to or loss of property caused by its tortious act or omission, occurring in the United States;
- A party seeks to enforce an arbitration agreement made by the foreign state with or for a private party;
- A lawsuit is brought in admiralty to enforce a maritime lien against a vessel or cargo of the foreign state, based on a commercial activity of the foreign state; and
- A party seeks to foreclose a preferred mortgage.
At issue in Philipp was the expropriation exception to the FSIA, which grants U.S. courts jurisdiction over foreign sovereign states in cases “in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are at issue.” 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(3). The Philipp case involved the claims of heirs of German Jewish art dealers against the Federal Republic of Germany and an instrumentality of Germany. The heirs alleged that, as part of the Nazi genocide, the Nazi government had coerced the German Jewish art dealers to sell their art collection of medieval relics to Prussia for a fraction of its value. Today, the art collection is displayed in a museum in Berlin and is owned by Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz (“SPK”), which is the instrumentality of Germany sued in this case.
Germany and SPK (collectively referred to as Germany) moved to dismiss the claims under the FSIA, arguing that the heirs' claims did not fall within the expropriation exception to sovereign immunity for “property taken in violation of international law.” The district court sitting in the District of Columbia denied Germany’s motion to dismiss and the D.C. Circuit affirmed, finding that although the domestic takings rule mandates that a foreign sovereign’s taking of the property of its own nationals is not a violation of international law, which is required for application of the expropriation exception to immunity, the forced art sale resulted from the Nazi genocide, which is a violation of international law under the FSIA.
However, on February 3, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision declining to exercise jurisdiction over Germany, holding that a sovereign nation’s taking of the property of its own citizens during a genocide is not in violation of international law. The Court reasoned that the relevant “international law” incorporated in the expropriation exception of the FSIA is the international law of property—not the international law of genocide—and under the international law of property, a foreign sovereign’s taking of the property of its own nationals remains a domestic affair.
The Supreme Court did not address Germany’s argument on whether U.S. courts should avoid deciding this case on international comity grounds.
By refusing “to subject all manner of sovereign public acts to judicial scrutiny under the FSIA by transforming the expropriation exception into an all-purpose jurisdictional hook for adjudicating human rights violations,” the Supreme Court has significantly narrowed the scope of the expropriation clause of the FSIA to include only cases involving violations of international rights of property, and excluding violations of other types of international law—including international human rights law. It remains to be seen whether other forums will provide remedies for litigants seeking to recover property that has been expropriated by foreign governments.
Search Blog
Follow Us
Recent Posts
- What You Need to Know About the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Build America TIFIA Loan
- Breaking News: Federal Judge Blocks Nationwide Implementation of the FTC’s New Rule Banning Noncompete Agreements
- September 4th is Almost Here: How Employers Can Prepare for the Upcoming Effective Date of the FTC’s Non-Compete Rule
- Florida’s New Statutory Home Warranty: What Home Builders Need to Know
- Orange County Proposes Temporary Suspension Ordinance on New Development Applications
- Raising the Roof: The U.S. Department of Labor Announces Rule Raising Salary Thresholds for Overtime Exemptions
- New Guidelines Anticipated Following HHS’s Health Cybersecurity Concept Paper
- SECURE 2.0 and Protecting Your Designated Beneficiaries
- Florida Appellate Court Provides Further Guidance Regarding New Summary Judgment Rule
- Pith? Perfect for Lienors, Not So Much for Landlords: Protecting Rights When Improvements Are Made to Commercial Tenancies
Popular Categories
- Employment and Labor
- Construction
- Business of Real Estate
- Litigation (Labor & Employment)
- Construction Litigation
- Competition
- Landlord-Tenant
- Real Estate Law
- Public Private Partnership
- Cybersecurity
- Intellectual Property
- Construction
- Appeals
- Public Finance
- Development/Land Use
- Litigation
- Contracts
- Data Security
- Trusts and Estates
- Business
- Supreme Court
- Privacy
- Technology
- Litigation (Appellate)
- IP Litigation
- Patents
- Business
- Regulatory Compliance
- Florida Government Contracts
- Health Care
- Foreclosures
- Trademark
- Contracting
- Financial Institutions
- Compliance
- Estate planning
- International Dispute Resolution
- Property Tax
- Conveyances
- Florida Public Contracts
- Government Contracting
- Government Contracts
- Government
- Lease
- Appellate Blog
- Patent Office
- Insurance
- Wealth planning
- Federal Government Contracting
- Cyber fraud
- Florida Bid Protests
- Public Contracts
- Infringement
- Proposal Writing
- Public Bidding
- GAO
- International Arbitration and Litigation
- Arbitration
- Bid Protest
- International
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Restrictive Covenants
- Grant Writing
- Copyright
- Title
- Promissory Notes
- Small Business
- Florida Procurement
- Public procurement
- Consumer Privacy
- PTAB
- General Liability
- Technology
- International Arbitration
- Liens
- Liens and encumbrances
- Creditor's Rights
- Bidding
- Attorneys' Fees
- Inter Partes Review
- Power Generation
- Consumer Protection
- Regulation
- Contracting
- Government Vendor
- State Government Contracts
- Venue
- Ad Valorem Assessments
- Florida Administrative Law
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Bankruptcy
- Florida Public Procurement
- Russia-Related Arbitration
- Mortgages
- Eviction
- Record on Appeal
- FINRA
- Rehearing
- Loan guaranties
- Patents - Assignor Estoppel
- Dispute Resolution
- Statute of limitations
- Statute of repose
- Maritime
- Liens
- Damages
- Briefing
- Patents - Obviousness
- Request for Proposal
- Commercial Brokerage
- Department of Labor
- Trade Secrets
- Bid Writing
- Florida Bidding Strategies
- Renewal
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida County Lands
- Florida Economic Incentive Packages
- Jury Instructions
- Stay
- Certiorari
- Design Professionals
- email hacking
- Forum Selection
- Offers of Judgment
- Prevailing Party
- Settlements
- Assignment of Contract
- Assignment of Proceeds
- Lis Pendens
- Banking
- Designer Liability
- Finality
- Fintech
- Appellate Jurisdiction - Deadlines
- Evidence
- Evidence
- Expert
- Expert Science
- Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Federal Supply Schedule
- Florida Public Records Law
- Marketing/Advertising
- Mootness
- Preservation
- Socio-Economic Programs
- Sunshine Law
- Unlicensed Contracting
- Veteran Owned Business
- Partnerships and LLCs
- Homestead
- Standing
Editors
- Of Counsel
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Of Counsel
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
Archives
- September 2024
- August 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- February 2024
- November 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- October 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016