Plain-English summary
Court: Commingling proceeds alone doesn't make expropriated property connected to U.S. commerce
The Court unanimously vacated and remanded, ruling that merely alleging a foreign sovereign sold expropriated property, mixed the proceeds with other funds, and later used some funds in U.S. business does not by itself satisfy the FSIA expropriation exception’s required commercial nexus. The case returns to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Why this matters
The decision limits the circumstances under which victims of wrongful takings overseas can sue foreign states in U.S. courts. It clarifies that courts must look for a sufficiently direct commercial link between the specific property (or proceeds) at issue and commerce in the United States — not just broad claims that proceeds were mixed and some money later entered U.S. markets.
Who may feel it
- Private plaintiffs seeking to sue foreign states over expropriations
- Foreign sovereigns facing U.S. litigation over property taken abroad
- U.S. businesses and banks involved in transactions with foreign sovereign funds
- Federal courts deciding immunity and jurisdiction questions
Key questions
- What level of connection between the expropriated property (or proceeds) and U.S. commerce satisfies the FSIA expropriation exception?