Saudi Arabia v. Nelson case brief, 507 US 349 (1993)

Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 US 349 (1993)

-       Facts: American employee of a Saudi hospital brought action against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the hospital, and the hospital's purchasing agent in United States, based on injuries arising from his alleged detention and torture by the Saudi government.
-       Were the defendants foreign states?

• The court finds that the hospital is an agency or instrumentality of the state
• Because the defendants are foreign states, we presume that they cannot be sued unless an exception to the FSIA applies.

-       The Plaintiff relies on the first commercial exception, alleging that the suit was based on a commercial activity carried on in the US by a foreign state

• Plaintiff signed a contract with the hospital while he was in the US.
• Plaintiff relied on the ground that there was a negligent failure to inform him while he was in the United States that there was a high risk of being tortured in Saudi Arabia.

-       Here, the court says that the conduct was not commercial:

• The powers allegedly abused were those of police and penal officers, which are powers that no private person has, and are not commercial in nature.
• The nature of the conduct of the suit is torture, and that is not something for which people engage in trade or commerce.

-       How can one argue that this is a commercial transaction?

• It related to his job, and employment is certainly a commercial activity...
• Concurrence says:
  • Running a hospital is a commercial enterprise…
  • Retaliating against whistleblowers is not a purely sovereign act
  • However, the commercial act on which the suit is based did not take place in the United States.

- When you are applying the FSIA’s exceptions, you have to apply it very, very carefully – look at the language closely, and make sure to complete the analysis (read the WHOLE exception through and apply ALL of it)