Skip to main content
Skip to content
Brief email chain between paralegal Jessica Cadwell and Jeffrey Epstein referencing a 'Jane Doe' matterNSA origins and secrecy described in House Oversight document
Case File
d-16652House OversightLegal Filing

Supreme Court syllabus excerpt on FSIA immunity and development bank lending

The passage is a routine legal syllabus summarizing a Supreme Court decision on sovereign immunity and does not contain any specific allegations, names, transactions, or controversial actions linking Discusses FSIA requirements for suing foreign entities. Mentions that development bank lending may not qualify as commercial activity. Lists participating justices and dissenting opinion.

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #028542
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage is a routine legal syllabus summarizing a Supreme Court decision on sovereign immunity and does not contain any specific allegations, names, transactions, or controversial actions linking Discusses FSIA requirements for suing foreign entities. Mentions that development bank lending may not qualify as commercial activity. Lists participating justices and dissenting opinion.

Tags

sovereign-immunityhouse-oversightfsiasupreme-courtlegal
View on oversight.house.gov
Browse House Oversight Committee ReleasesHouse Oversight #028542

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Cite as: 586 U.S. (2019) 3 Syllabus inflated. The IOJA provides only default rules. An international or- ganization’s charter can always specify a different level of immunity, and many do. Nor is it clear that the lending activity of all develop- ment banks qualifies as commercial activity within the meaning of the FSIA. But even if it does qualify as commercial, that does not mean the organization is automatically subject to suit, since other FSIA requirements must also be met, see, eg., 28 U.S. C. §§1603, 1605(a)(2). Pp. 13-15. 860 F. 3d 708, reversed and remanded. ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, GINSBURG, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and GORSUCH, JdJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion. KAVANAUGH, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

DonateMore ways to support →
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.