Saudi Arabia v. Nelson
507 U.S. 349 (1993)
Procedural History:
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in a personal injury action against a sovereign government.
Overview:
Saudi Arabia (D) claimed foreign sovereign immunity from the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts after Nelson (P) filed suit against it, alleging wrongful arrest, imprisonment, and torture. Nelson (P) was recruited in the United States for employment as a monitoring systems engineer at a hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (D). When Nelson (P) discovered safety defects in the hospital’s oxygen and nitrous oxide lines, he repeatedly advised hospital officials of the defects and reported them to a Saudi government (D) commission as well. Hospital officials instructed Nelson (P) to ignore the problems. Several months later, he was called in to the hospital’s security office, arrested, and transported to a jail cell, where he was shackled, tortured, beaten, and kept without food for four days. After thirty-nine days, the Saudi government (D) released Nelson (P), allowing him to leave the country. Nelson (P) and his wife (P) filed this action in the United States, seeking damages for personal injury. They also claimed a basis for recovery in Saudi Arabia’s (D) failure to warn Nelson (P) of the hidden dangers associated with his employment. The Saudi government (D) appealed the judgment of the court of appeals.
Issue:
Are foreign states entitled to immunity from the jurisdiction of courts in the United States, unless the action is based upon a commercial activity in the manner of a private player within the market?
Rule:
Foreign states are entitled to immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts in the US, unless the action is based on upon a commercial activity in the manner of a private player within the market.
Analysis:
Under the “restrictive,” as opposed to the “absolute,” theory of foreign sovereign immunity. a state is immune from the jurisdiction of foreign courts as to its sovereign or public acts but not as to those that are private or commercial in character. A state engages in commercial activity under the restrictive theory where it exercises only those powers that can also be exercised by private citizens, as distinct from those powers peculiar to sovereigns. Whether a state acts in the manner of a private party is a question of behavior, not motivation. While it is difficult to distinguish the purpose of conduct from its nature, the Court recognized that the Act unmistakably commands it to observe the distinction.
Outcome:
-Foreign states are entitled to immunity from the jurisdiction of courts in the United States, unless the action is based upon a commercial activity in the manner of a private player in the market.
-Saudi Arabia’s (D) tortious conduct in this case fails to qualify as “commercial activity” within the meaning of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. Its conduct boils down to abuse of the power of its police by the Saudi government (D). A foreign state’s exercise of the power of its police is peculiarly sovereign in nature and is not the sort of activity engaged in by private parties.
-Furthermore, Nelson’s (P) failure to warn claim must also fail; sovereign nations have no duty to warn of their propensity for tortious conduct.
-The Nelsons’ (P) action is not based upon a commercial activity within the meaning of the Act and therefore is outside the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts. Motion to dismiss is granted. Reversed.
CONCURRENCE: (White, J.) Neither the hospital’s employment practices nor its disciplinary procedures have any apparent connection to this country. Absent a nexus to the United States, the Act does not grant the Nelsons (P) access to our courts.
DISSENT: (Stevens) If the same activities had been performed by a private business, jurisdiction would be upheld.
507 U.S. 349 (1993)
Procedural History:
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in a personal injury action against a sovereign government.
Overview:
Saudi Arabia (D) claimed foreign sovereign immunity from the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts after Nelson (P) filed suit against it, alleging wrongful arrest, imprisonment, and torture. Nelson (P) was recruited in the United States for employment as a monitoring systems engineer at a hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (D). When Nelson (P) discovered safety defects in the hospital’s oxygen and nitrous oxide lines, he repeatedly advised hospital officials of the defects and reported them to a Saudi government (D) commission as well. Hospital officials instructed Nelson (P) to ignore the problems. Several months later, he was called in to the hospital’s security office, arrested, and transported to a jail cell, where he was shackled, tortured, beaten, and kept without food for four days. After thirty-nine days, the Saudi government (D) released Nelson (P), allowing him to leave the country. Nelson (P) and his wife (P) filed this action in the United States, seeking damages for personal injury. They also claimed a basis for recovery in Saudi Arabia’s (D) failure to warn Nelson (P) of the hidden dangers associated with his employment. The Saudi government (D) appealed the judgment of the court of appeals.
Issue:
Are foreign states entitled to immunity from the jurisdiction of courts in the United States, unless the action is based upon a commercial activity in the manner of a private player within the market?
Rule:
Foreign states are entitled to immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts in the US, unless the action is based on upon a commercial activity in the manner of a private player within the market.
Analysis:
Under the “restrictive,” as opposed to the “absolute,” theory of foreign sovereign immunity. a state is immune from the jurisdiction of foreign courts as to its sovereign or public acts but not as to those that are private or commercial in character. A state engages in commercial activity under the restrictive theory where it exercises only those powers that can also be exercised by private citizens, as distinct from those powers peculiar to sovereigns. Whether a state acts in the manner of a private party is a question of behavior, not motivation. While it is difficult to distinguish the purpose of conduct from its nature, the Court recognized that the Act unmistakably commands it to observe the distinction.
Outcome:
-Foreign states are entitled to immunity from the jurisdiction of courts in the United States, unless the action is based upon a commercial activity in the manner of a private player in the market.
-Saudi Arabia’s (D) tortious conduct in this case fails to qualify as “commercial activity” within the meaning of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. Its conduct boils down to abuse of the power of its police by the Saudi government (D). A foreign state’s exercise of the power of its police is peculiarly sovereign in nature and is not the sort of activity engaged in by private parties.
-Furthermore, Nelson’s (P) failure to warn claim must also fail; sovereign nations have no duty to warn of their propensity for tortious conduct.
-The Nelsons’ (P) action is not based upon a commercial activity within the meaning of the Act and therefore is outside the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts. Motion to dismiss is granted. Reversed.
CONCURRENCE: (White, J.) Neither the hospital’s employment practices nor its disciplinary procedures have any apparent connection to this country. Absent a nexus to the United States, the Act does not grant the Nelsons (P) access to our courts.
DISSENT: (Stevens) If the same activities had been performed by a private business, jurisdiction would be upheld.
No comments:
Post a Comment