Samantar v. Yousuf - 560 U.S. 305, 130 S. Ct. 2278 (2010)

Rule:

Reading the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 as a whole, there is nothing to suggest a court should read "foreign state" in 28 U.S.C.S. § 1603(a) to include an official acting on behalf of the foreign state, and much to indicate that this meaning was not what Congress enacted.

Facts:

Respondents, who were persecuted by the Somali government during the 1980's, filed a damages action alleging that petitioner, who then held high-level government positions, exercised command and control over the military forces committing the abuses; that he knew or should have known of these acts; and that he aided and abetted in their commission. The District Court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and granted petitioner's motion to dismiss the suit, resting its decision on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA or Act), which provided that a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of both federal and state courts except as provided in the Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1604. The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that the FSIA did not apply to officials of a foreign state. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issue:

Did the FSIA apply to officials of a foreign state? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court held that an individual foreign official was not a "foreign state" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.S. § 1603. An individual official was not an "agency or instrumentality" of a foreign state under § 1603(b), which was defined in a manner that did not evidence the intent to include individual officials. Moreover, elsewhere in the FSIA Congress expressly mentioned officials when it wished to count their acts as equivalent to those of a foreign state. The legislative history pointed toward an intent to leave official immunity out of the scope of the FSIA. The claims against the official therefore were properly governed by the common law of foreign official immunity.