Ex Parte Colonna
Headline: Denied: Italian Ambassador’s bid to file emergency orders over a seized oil ship and cargo, because wartime law bars enemy governments from bringing new lawsuits while the United States is at war.
Holding:
- Prevents enemy governments from initiating lawsuits in U.S. courts during wartime.
- Allows enemy parties only to defend suits already filed, not to sue.
- Denies immediate review of ownership claims to the seized ship and oil.
Summary
Background
A representative of the Italian government, through the Royal Italian Ambassador, asked permission to file emergency writs (prohibition and mandamus) in this Court to challenge proceedings in a New Jersey District Court. He said a vessel and its cargo of oil in the District Court’s possession belong to Italy and are entitled to sovereign immunity. After the motion was filed, the United States declared war on Italy on December 11, 1941, which changed Italy’s status under wartime law.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether an enemy government may bring suit in U.S. courts during wartime. It relied on the Trading with the Enemy Act: Section 2(b) defines “enemy” to include a government at war with the United States, and Section 7(b) provides that enemies may not prosecute suits in U.S. courts until the war ends, though they may defend suits brought against them. The opinion noted that Congress and earlier decisions recognize that war suspends an enemy’s right to prosecute actions. Citing those statutory provisions and past cases, the Court concluded it could not entertain the Ambassador’s application.
Real world impact
Because of this ruling, the Italian government cannot initiate new lawsuits in U.S. courts over the seized ship and oil while the war continues, though it may defend any suits. The decision is procedural: the Court denied leave to file immediately rather than deciding ultimate ownership of the property. The motion for leave to file was denied, and Justice Roberts took no part in the decision.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?