Aenergy, S.A., et al. v. Republic of Angola, et al.

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602 et seq., sets forth exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity, pursuant to which litigants may bring civil claims against foreign states. Where an exception to immunity applies, the FSIA instructs that federal courts “shall” exercise jurisdiction and foreign states “shall be” liable to the same extent as private persons. As Justice Scalia explained for the Court in Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., “the FSIA permits a foreign plaintiff to sue a foreign sovereign in the courts of the United States.” 504 U.S. 607, 619 (1992) (quotation marks omitted). Congress instructed courts to exercise jurisdiction over such cases even though evidence and witnesses will necessarily be located abroad. Yet some courts, like the Second Circuit below, invoke just such factors to dismiss FSIA suits on the ground of forum non conveniens. Such rulings improperly substitute a judge’s case-by-case view of whether to abstain for the FSIA’s careful scheme governing when federal courts “shall” exercise jurisdiction over suits against foreign sovereigns. The question presented is: Whether, in suits against foreign sovereign defendants under the FSIA, courts may dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds when a statutory exception to sovereign immunity applies and, if they may, whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens is governed by a different standard in such cases.