No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Germany v. Philipp (U.S. Sup. Ct.)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 June 2021
Extract
In 1976, the U.S. Congress enacted the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) to afford foreign sovereigns presumptive immunity from the jurisdictional reach of U.S. courts absent the application of one of the exceptions specifically enumerated in the statute. In Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether a foreign sovereign's “taking of property from its own nationals” falls within FSIA's so-called expropriation exception for “property taken in violation of international law.”
- Type
- International Legal Documents
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The American Society of International Law
References
ENDNOTES
1 The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602–11 (2021).
2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1605.
3 Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, 141 S.Ct. 703 (2021).
4 Id. at 708.
5 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3). The expropriation exception consists of three requirements: (1) property rights must be at issue; (2) the property in question must have been “taken in violation of international law”; and (3) the property in question at issue must be “owned or operated by an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state that is engaged in a commercial activity in the United States.” In Philipp, the Supreme Court focused almost exclusively on the second requirement.
6 Philipp, supra note 3, at 708.
7 Philipp v. Federal Republic of Germany, 248 F.Supp.3d 59, 65 (D.D.C. Ct. 2017).
8 Compliant, Philipp v. Federal Republic of Germany, 248 F.Supp.3d 59 (D.D.C. Ct. 2017) (No. 1:15-cv-00266), 2015 WL 757806.
9 Philipp, supra note 3, at 708.
10 See Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, Philipp v. Federal Republic of Germany, 248 F.Supp.3d 59 (D.D.C. Ct. 2017) (No. 15-cv-00266), 2015 WL 7069881.
11 Id (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
12 Id.
13 Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Philipp v. Federal Republic of Germany, 248 F.Supp.3d 59 (D.D.C. Ct. 2017) (No. 15-cv-00266), 2016 WL 3916051.
14 See Philipp, 248 F.Supp.3d at 87.
15 Id. at 410–11 (internal quotation marks omitted).
16 Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Philipp, 141 S.Ct. 703 (No. 19-351) 2019 WL 4528128 (internal quotation marks omitted).
17 Philipp, 141 S.Ct. at 709-710 (citing Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 84 S.Ct. 923, 937 (1964)).
18 Id. at 709.
19 Id. at 712.
20 Id. at 713.
21 Id. at 715.
22 Id. at 715–16.
23 See, e.g., “Nazi-Era Claims From Holocaust Heirs Rebuffed at Supreme Court (1)”, Bloomberg Law (Feb. 3, 2021), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/nazi-era-claims-cant-be-heard-now-in-u-s-courts-scotus-says.
24 Restatement (Fourth), Foreign Relations Law of the United States (2018) § 455.
25 Philipp, supra note 3, at 714: “There is no reason to anticipate that Germany's reaction would be any different were American courts to exercise the jurisdiction claimed in this case.”
26 Id. at 714 (citing Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne Int'l Drilling Co., 137 S.Ct. 1312, 1320–21, 1322 (2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).
27 Id. at 713.