Facts
- During the Falklands/Malvinas war, Argentine military aircraft attacked and severely damaged a crude-oil tanker in international waters.
- The tanker was owned by United Carriers, Inc., and chartered by Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.; both were Liberian corporations.
- The owner and charterer filed separate federal suits seeking damages from Argentina.
- Plaintiffs asserted jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS); Amerada Hess also invoked federal admiralty jurisdiction and customary international law “universal jurisdiction.”
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) barred the suits.
- The Second Circuit reversed, holding jurisdiction existed under the ATS.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
- Whether the FSIA provides the exclusive basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in U.S. courts.
- Whether any FSIA exception eliminated Argentina’s immunity for a wartime attack on a vessel on the high seas.
- Whether the ATS, federal admiralty jurisdiction, or customary international law can supply jurisdiction over a foreign state despite the FSIA.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit and reinstated the district court’s dismissal.
- The Court held the FSIA provides the sole basis for jurisdiction over a foreign state in U.S. courts.
- The Court held no FSIA exception applied to the claims arising from the attack in international waters.
- The Court held the ATS, admiralty jurisdiction, and customary international law theories could not override FSIA immunity.
- Justice Blackmun concurred in the judgment but would have remanded for further consideration of FSIA exceptions rather than resolving their inapplicability on the existing record.
Legal Principles
- When a defendant qualifies as a “foreign state” under the FSIA, subject-matter jurisdiction exists only if an FSIA immunity exception applies.
- The FSIA’s immunity rule (§ 1604) and jurisdictional grant (§ 1330(a)) operate together, making the FSIA the exclusive jurisdictional framework for suits against foreign states.
- The ATS is a general jurisdictional statute for certain alien tort claims and does not independently authorize jurisdiction over a foreign state where the FSIA confers immunity.
- Other general grants of federal jurisdiction, including admiralty jurisdiction, do not permit courts to proceed against a foreign state absent an FSIA exception.
- The FSIA noncommercial tort exception requires that the injury or property damage “occur in the United States” and does not reach torts occurring on the high seas.
- Existing international agreements affect FSIA immunity only when they expressly conflict with the FSIA’s provisions; absent an explicit waiver in an applicable agreement, immunity remains.
Conclusion
The Court held that the FSIA is the exclusive means of obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign in U.S. courts and that a wartime attack on a vessel in international waters did not fall within any FSIA exception, so Argentina was immune and the suits were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.