Supreme Court Ruling Highlights Value of Judgments Against Foreign Governments

A recent Supreme Court case has shed light on the purpose of suing foreign government entities. The court's decision in Exxon Mobil v. Cimex, a case involving Cuba and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), shows that judgments against these entities can have value beyond monetary payouts.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, argued that Congress intended for plaintiffs to be able to sue foreign government entities without having to satisfy FSIA exceptions. This would allow plaintiffs to obtain judgments even if they are unable to collect a monetary judgment immediately.

The dissent, led by Justice Elena Kagan, disagreed, pointing out that the FSIA immunizes foreign-state property from attachment and execution, making it difficult for plaintiffs to collect a judgment even if they obtain one. The majority's approach, the dissent argued, would not advance Congress' aim of providing relief to American nationals whose property was confiscated by Cuba.

The court also considered the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) cases in Cisco Systems v. Doe, which limited the ability of foreign plaintiffs to sue individuals and companies in the US over human rights violations. The decision closed down an avenue for vindication through ATS judgments, even if they are not collectible.