08-1555 Samantar v. Yousuf

Listen to this article

Torts
FSIA

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not provide immunity to individuals from suits based on actions taken in their official capacity.

Reading the FSIA as a whole, there is nothing to suggest that "foreign state" should be read to include an official acting on behalf of that state. The Act specifies that a foreign state "includes a political subdivision . . . or an agency or instrumentality" of that state, §1603(a), and specifically delimits what counts as an "agency or instrumentality," §1603(b). Textual clues in the "agency or instrumentality" definition-"any entity" matching three specified characteristics, ibid.-cut against reading it to include a foreign official. "Entity" typically refers to an organization; and the required statutory characteristics-e.g., "separate legal person," §1603(b)(1)-apply awkwardly, if at all, to individuals. Section 1603(a)'s "foreign state" definition is also inapplicable. The list set out there, even if illustrative rather than exclusive, does not suggest that officials are included, since the listed defendants are all entities. The Court's conclusion is also supported by the fact that Congress expressly mentioned officials elsewhere in the FSIA when it wished to count their acts as equivalent to those of the foreign state. Moreover, other FSIA provisions-e.g., §1608(a)-point away from reading "foreign state" to include foreign officials.

552 F. 3d 371, affirmed and remanded.

Local effect: The opinion is consistent with governing Seventh Circuit precedent, Enahoro v. Abubakar, 408 F.3d 877, 881-882 (7th Cir. 2005).

08-1555 Samantar v. Yousuf

Stevens, J.; Alito, J., concurring; Thomas, J., concurring; Scalia, J., concurring.

Full Text