Justia U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Havana Docks Corporation, a U.S.-based entity, obtained a usufructuary concession from the Cuban Government in 1928, granting it the right to develop and operate docks at the Port of Havana until 2004. This concession included a government promise of compensation if expropriation occurred before expiration. In 1960, following Fidel Castro’s rise to power, the Cuban Government seized control of the docks without compensating Havana Docks, prematurely terminating its concession. The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission later certified Havana Docks’ loss as approximately $9 million plus interest. Decades later, from 2016 to 2019, four major cruise lines used the Havana docks to transport passengers to Cuba, paying Cuban government-affiliated entities for access.Havana Docks sued the cruise lines under the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act (LIBERTAD Act) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The cruise lines argued they could not be liable because Havana Docks’ concession would have expired in 2004 even without confiscation. The District Court disagreed, found for Havana Docks, and ordered each cruise line to pay over $100 million. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed this judgment, holding that liability under the Act required the defendant’s conduct to interfere with a property interest the plaintiff would have had absent confiscation, and since Havana Docks’ concession would have expired before the cruise lines’ conduct, no liability attached.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and disagreed with the Eleventh Circuit’s analysis. The Court held that, under the Act, liability attaches to anyone who traffics in physical property confiscated by the Cuban Government, not just property interests. It concluded that the cruise lines’ use of the docks constituted trafficking in confiscated property to which Havana Docks owns a claim, regardless of when Havana Docks’ concession would have expired. The Supreme Court vacated the Eleventh Circuit’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd." on Justia Law

President Trump, after taking office, declared national emergencies over two foreign threats: the influx of illegal drugs from Canada, Mexico, and China, and persistent trade deficits affecting U.S. manufacturing and supply chains. Invoking authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), he imposed tariffs—25% on most Canadian and Mexican imports, 10% on most Chinese imports for drug trafficking, and at least 10% on all imports for trade deficit concerns, with higher rates for dozens of nations and frequent modifications.Two sets of plaintiffs challenged these tariffs. In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Learning Resources plaintiffs won a preliminary injunction, as the court found IEEPA did not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The Government's motion to transfer to the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) was denied. In V.O.S. Selections, plaintiffs prevailed in the CIT, which granted summary judgment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed, holding that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate… importation” did not authorize such tariffs, as their scope, amount, and duration were unbounded.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the consolidated appeals. It held that IEEPA does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs, reasoning that the statute’s language—particularly “regulate… importation”—does not include the distinct power to tax or raise revenue through tariffs, a core congressional function. The Court emphasized the absence of explicit authorization and the constitutional structure reserving tariff powers to Congress. The Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s judgment in the V.O.S. Selections case and vacated the District Court’s judgment in Learning Resources, remanding with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. View "Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump" on Justia Law

The case involves two separate lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the Antiterrorism Act of 1990 (ATA). The plaintiffs, American citizens injured or killed in terror attacks, sued the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Palestinian Authority (PA). The plaintiffs alleged that the PLO and PA engaged in conduct that triggered jurisdiction under the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA), which deems these entities to have consented to personal jurisdiction in ATA cases under certain conditions.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found evidence that the PLO and PA engaged in conduct sufficient to satisfy the PSJVTA's jurisdictional predicates. However, the court ruled that exercising jurisdiction under the PSJVTA was unconstitutional. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, holding that the PSJVTA could not establish personal jurisdiction over the PLO or PA consistent with constitutional due process requirements.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that the PSJVTA's personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Court reasoned that the statute reasonably ties the assertion of jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches. The Court reversed the Second Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization" on Justia Law

Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. entered into a satellite-leasing agreement with Antrix Corporation Ltd., a company owned by the Republic of India. The agreement was terminated by Antrix under a force majeure clause when the Indian Government decided it needed more satellite capacity for itself. Devas initiated arbitration, and the arbitral panel awarded Devas $562.5 million in damages plus interest. Devas sought to confirm the award in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, which confirmed the award and entered a $1.29 billion judgment against Antrix.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, finding that personal jurisdiction was lacking. The Ninth Circuit held that under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), personal jurisdiction over a foreign state requires not only an immunity exception and proper service but also a traditional minimum contacts analysis as set forth in International Shoe Co. v. Washington. The court concluded that Antrix did not have sufficient suit-related contacts with the United States to establish personal jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that personal jurisdiction under the FSIA exists when an immunity exception applies and service is proper. The Court determined that the FSIA does not require proof of minimum contacts beyond the contacts already required by the Act’s enumerated exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp." on Justia Law

The Government of Mexico filed a lawsuit against seven American gun manufacturers, alleging that the companies aided and abetted unlawful gun sales that routed firearms to Mexican drug cartels. Mexico claimed that the manufacturers failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent trafficking of their guns into Mexico, resulting in harm from the weapons' misuse. The complaint included allegations that the manufacturers knowingly supplied firearms to retail dealers who sold them illegally to Mexican traffickers, failed to impose controls on their distribution networks, and made design and marketing decisions to stimulate demand among cartel members.The U.S. District Court dismissed the complaint, but the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the decision. The First Circuit found that Mexico had plausibly alleged that the defendants aided and abetted illegal firearms sales, thus satisfying the predicate exception under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that Mexico's complaint did not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers. The Court concluded that the allegations did not meet the requirements for aiding and abetting liability, as they did not show that the manufacturers took affirmative acts to facilitate the illegal sales or intended to promote the criminal activities. Consequently, PLCAA barred the lawsuit, and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos" on Justia Law

Jewish survivors of the Hungarian Holocaust and their heirs sued Hungary and its national railway (MÁV) in federal court, seeking damages for property allegedly seized during World War II. They claimed that Hungary and MÁV liquidated the expropriated property, commingled the proceeds with other government funds, and later used funds from those commingled accounts in connection with commercial activities in the United States.The District Court for the District of Columbia determined that the plaintiffs' "commingling theory" satisfied the commercial nexus requirement of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) expropriation exception. The D.C. Circuit affirmed, reasoning that requiring plaintiffs to trace the particular funds from the sale of their specific expropriated property to the United States would make the exception a "nullity" in cases involving liquidated property.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that alleging commingling of funds alone cannot satisfy the commercial nexus requirement of the FSIA’s expropriation exception. The Court emphasized that plaintiffs must trace either the specific expropriated property itself or any property exchanged for such property to the United States. The Court vacated the judgment of the D.C. Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Hungary v. Simon" on Justia Law

Hetronic (a U.S. company) manufactures remote controls for construction equipment. Abitron Austria, once a licensed Hetronic distributor, claimed ownership of the rights to much of Hetronic’s intellectual property and began employing Hetronic’s marks on products it sold. Hetronic sued Abitron in the Western District of Oklahoma under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114(1)(a), 1125(a)(1). A jury awarded Hetronic approximately $96 million. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the Lanham Act extended to “all of [Abitron’s] foreign infringing conduct.”The Supreme Court vacated. Applying the presumption against extraterritoriality, the relevant sections of the Lanham Act are not extraterritorial and extend only to claims where the infringing use in commerce is domestic. Neither provision provides an express statement of extraterritorial application or any other clear indication that it is one of the “rare” provisions that nonetheless applies abroad. Both simply prohibit the use “in commerce” of protected trademarks when that use “is likely to cause confusion.” Because sections 1114(1)(a) and 1125(a)(1) are not extraterritorial, the Court considered the location of the conduct relevant to the focus of the statutory provisions: the unauthorized “use in commerce” of a protected trademark under certain conditions. “Use in commerce” provides the dividing line between foreign and domestic applications of these provisions. View "Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc." on Justia Law

Smagin won a multimillion-dollar arbitration award against Yegiazaryan stemming from the misappropriation of funds in Moscow. Because Yegiazaryan lives in California, Smagin, who lives in Russia, filed suit to enforce the award in California under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The district court froze Yegiazaryan’s California assets before entering judgment. While the action was ongoing, Yegiazaryan himself obtained an unrelated multimillion-dollar arbitration award and sought to avoid the asset freeze by concealing the funds.Smagin filed a civil suit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), alleging Yegiazaryan and others worked together to frustrate Smagin’s collection on the judgment through a pattern of RICO predicate racketeering acts, including wire fraud, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that Smagin failed to plead a “domestic injury.”The Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court disagreed. The “domestic-injury” requirement for private civil RICO suits is context-specific and turns largely on the facts alleged; it does not mean that foreign plaintiffs may not sue under RICO. The circumstances surrounding Smagin’s injury indicate that the injury arose in the United States. Smagin’s alleged injury is his inability to collect his judgment. Much of the alleged racketeering activity that caused that injury occurred in the United States. While some of Yegiazaryan’s actions to avoid collection occurred abroad, the scheme was directed toward frustrating the California judgment. The injurious effects of the racketeering activity largely manifested in California and undercut the orders of the California court. The Court rejected arguments that fraud is typically deemed felt at the plaintiff’s residence and that intangible property is generally located at the owner’s domicile as not necessarily supporting the presumption against extraterritoriality, with its distinctive concerns for comity and discerning congressional meaning. View "Yegiazaryan v. Smagin" on Justia Law

A 2017 terrorist attack on an Istanbul nightclub, committed on behalf of ISIS, killed Alassaf and 38 others. Alassaf’s family sued Facebook, Twitter, and Google (which owns YouTube) under 18 U.S.C. 2333, which permits U.S. nationals who have been injured by an act of international terrorism to sue for damages. They alleged that the companies knowingly allowed ISIS and its supporters to use their platforms and “recommendation” algorithms for recruiting, fundraising, and spreading propaganda and have profited from the advertisements placed on ISIS content. The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the complaint.A unanimous Supreme Court reversed. The 2016 Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, section 2333(d)(2), imposes secondary civil liability on anyone “who aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with the person who committed such an act of international terrorism.” The Court concluded that it is not enough for a defendant to have given substantial assistance to a transcendent enterprise. A defendant must have knowingly provided substantial assistance in the commission of the actionable wrong—here, an act of international terrorism. The allegations do not show that the defendants gave ISIS such knowing and substantial assistance that they culpably participated in the attack. There are no allegations that the platforms were used to plan the attack; that the defendants gave ISIS special treatment; nor that the defendants carefully screened content before allowing users to upload it. The mere creation of media platforms is no more culpable than the creation of email, cell phones, or the internet generally.The allegations rest primarily on passive nonfeasance. The plaintiffs identify no duty that would require communication-providing services to terminate customers after discovering that the customers were using the service for illicit ends. The expansive scope of the claims would necessarily hold the defendants liable for aiding and abetting every ISIS terrorist act committed anywhere in the world. The Ninth Circuit improperly focused primarily on the value of the platforms to ISIS, rather than whether the defendants culpably associated themselves with the attack. View "Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh" on Justia Law

In 2015, ISIS terrorists unleashed coordinated attacks across Paris, killing 130 victims, including Gonzalez, a 23-year-old U.S. citizen. Gonzalez’s family sued Google under 18 U.S.C. 2333(a), (d)(2). They alleged that Google was directly and secondarily liable for the terrorist attack that killed Gonzalez, citing the use of YouTube, which Google owns and operates, by ISIS and ISIS supporters.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit, finding most of the claims were barred by the Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1). The sole exceptions were claims based on allegations that Google approved ISIS videos for advertisements and then shared proceeds with ISIS through YouTube’s revenue-sharing system. The court held that these potential claims were not barred by section 230, but that the allegations nonetheless failed to state a viable claim. The complaint neither plausibly alleged that “Google reached an agreement with ISIS,” as required for conspiracy liability, nor that Google’s acts were “intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or to influence or affect a government,” as required for a direct-liability claim.The Supreme Court vacated. The complaint. independent of section 230, states little if any claim for relief. The Court noted its contemporaneously-issued “Twitter” decision and held that the complaint fails to state a claim for aiding and abetting. The Court remanded the case for consideration in light of the Twitter decision. View "Gonzalez v. Google LLC" on Justia Law