Opinion of the Court
tions prescribed in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) to the general rule of sovereign immunity.[1]
Victims of state-sponsored terrorism, like others proceeding under an FSIA exception, may obtain a judgment against a foreign state on “establish[ing] [their] claim[s]...by evidence satisfactory to the court.” §1608(e). After gaining a judgment, however, plaintiffs proceeding under the terrorism exception “have often faced practical and legal difficulties” at the enforcement stage. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 2. Subject to stated exceptions, the FSIA shields foreign-state property from execution. §1609. When the terrorism exception was adopted, only foreign-state property located in the United States and “used for a commercial activity” was available for the satisfaction of judgments. §1610(a)(7), (b)(3). Further limiting judgment-enforcement prospects, the FSIA shields from execution property “of a foreign central bank or monetary authority held for its own account.” §1611(b)(1).
To lessen these enforcement difficulties, Congress enacted the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA), which authorizes execution of judgments obtained under the FSIA’s terrorism exception against “the blocked assets of [a] terrorist party (including the blocked assets of any agency or instrumentality of that terrorist party).” §201(a), 116 Stat. 2337, note following 28 U.S.C. §1610.
- ↑ The FSIA “provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in the courts of this country” and renders a foreign government “presumptively immune from the jurisdiction of United State courts unless one of the Act’s express exceptions to sovereign immunity applies.” OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, 577 U. S. ___, ___ (2015)(slip op., at 3) (internal quotation marks omitted); see 28 U.S.C. §1330(a) (conferring jurisdiction over “any claim...with respect to which the foreign state is not entitled to immunity”); §1604 (on “[i]mmunity of a foreign state from jurisdiction”).
