Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 2019

Republic of Sudan v. Harrison

587 U.S. 1 | 139 S. Ct. 1048 | 203 L. Ed. 2d 433 | 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2293

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, serving a foreign state under §1608(a)(3) requires mailing process to its foreign minister’s office abroad, not merely addressing it to the minister at a U.S. embassy.

Background

Victims of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole and their family members sued Sudan, alleging that it had supported al Qaeda. To serve Sudan under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), the court clerk mailed the papers to Sudan’s foreign minister at the Sudanese Embassy in Washington, D.C., and received a signed receipt. Sudan did not appear, and the district court entered a $314 million default judgment.

When the plaintiffs later sought to collect the judgment from Sudanese assets, Sudan challenged the judgment for lack of proper service. The Second Circuit upheld the resulting turnover orders, reasoning that mailing the papers to the embassy could reasonably be expected to reach the foreign minister. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether mailing process addressed to a foreign minister at the foreign state’s U.S. embassy satisfies the FSIA’s requirement that it be “addressed and dispatched” to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs.

Holding

No. Under §1608(a)(3), the papers must be mailed directly to the foreign minister at the minister’s office in the foreign state.

Reasoning

The FSIA makes proper service under §1608 a condition of personal jurisdiction over a foreign state. When the statute’s first two service methods are unavailable, §1608(a)(3) permits mailing the papers to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs. The Court interpreted that method’s requirements rather than asking only whether the mailing was likely to provide notice.

In ordinary usage, a mailing “addressed and dispatched” to someone is sent directly to that person at a customary address. A foreign minister’s usual workplace is the ministry in the foreign state, not its embassy in the United States. A signed receipt at the ministry also provides a stronger basis for trusting that the papers will be handled on the minister’s behalf than a receipt from an embassy mailroom.

Nearby provisions reinforce that reading. Congress expressly allowed service reasonably calculated to give actual notice, and service on specified agents, in provisions governing foreign-state agencies and instrumentalities; it did not use those terms for service on a foreign state under §1608(a)(3). The FSIA’s rules for when service takes effect likewise favor delivery to an office where receipt is likely to bring the papers promptly to an appropriate official.

The Court’s reading also avoids potential tension with federal service rules and the State Department’s view that mailing process to an embassy implicates diplomatic inviolability. The Court did not decide whether the Vienna Convention itself forbids such a mailing.

The Court acknowledged a counterargument: the next service method, §1608(a)(4), expressly identifies a destination in Washington, D.C., while §1608(a)(3) does not expressly identify one abroad. It found the text and statutory context more persuasive. Even if strict compliance seemed unfair given Sudan’s possible awareness of the suit, the plaintiffs could attempt service again, using diplomatic channels if necessary.

Dissents

Justice Thomas

Reasoning

The statute identifies the foreign minister as the recipient but does not require mailing to any particular office. Because an embassy ordinarily provides a channel for reaching its foreign minister, and nothing showed that Sudan’s embassy rejected the packet, Thomas would have held this service valid.