## Facts

- Victims and family members of U.S. sailors killed or injured in the 2000 bombing of the USS *Cole* sued the Republic of Sudan under the FSIA terrorism exception, alleging Sudan provided material support to al-Qaeda.
- The district court clerk served process by sending the summons and complaint by courier mail requiring a signed receipt, addressed to Sudan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, but delivered to Sudan’s embassy in Washington, D.C.
- Sudan did not appear, and the district court entered a default judgment exceeding $300 million.
- The judgment was registered in the Southern District of New York, which issued turnover orders against certain assets to enforce the judgment.
- After later appearing, Sudan argued service was defective under FSIA § 1608(a) and that the default judgment and enforcement orders were void for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The Second Circuit upheld service, reasoning the statute did not specify the geographic destination and the method used was reasonably calculated to provide notice.

## Issues

1. Whether FSIA § 1608(a)(3) permits service on a foreign state by mailing the service packet to the foreign minister “via” the foreign state’s embassy in the United States rather than to the minister’s office in the foreign state.
2. Whether a default judgment against a foreign state may stand when the plaintiff obtained actual notice but did not strictly comply with FSIA’s prescribed service method.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded (8–1).
- FSIA § 1608(a)(3) requires the service packet to be mailed directly to the foreign minister’s office in the foreign state; mailing to a foreign embassy in the United States does not comply.
- Because service was invalid, personal jurisdiction under FSIA was not properly established on that record, and the default judgment could not stand as entered.

## Legal Principles

- FSIA service provisions are hierarchical and must be followed in the order specified by § 1608(a).
- Under § 1608(a)(3), a mailing must be “addressed and dispatched” to the head of the foreign ministry at the minister’s place of business in the foreign state, not at an overseas embassy.
- Actual notice does not cure noncompliance with § 1608(a)(3) when personal jurisdiction depends on proper service under § 1608.
- Interpreting § 1608(a)(3) to require service to the foreign minister’s office avoids conflict with diplomatic protections for missions under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

## Conclusion

The Court held that FSIA § 1608(a)(3) demands strict compliance: service by mail must be sent directly to the foreign minister’s office in the foreign state, and service routed through the foreign state’s U.S. embassy is ineffective even if it results in actual notice.


Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, 139 S. Ct. 1048 (2019)