Republic of Sudan v. Harrison

2019-03-26

Headline: Court rules that certified mail to a foreign embassy in the U.S. does not count as proper service; papers must be sent to the foreign minister's office in the minister's home country, limiting how plaintiffs serve foreign governments.

Holding: The Court held that mailing a service packet to a foreign state's embassy in the United States does not satisfy FSIA section 1608(a)(3); it must be addressed and dispatched to the foreign minister's office in the minister's home country.

Real World Impact:

Makes it harder to use embassy mail to obtain default judgments against foreign states.
Plaintiffs must send service to the foreign minister’s office abroad or use diplomatic channels.
Default judgments may be vacated if service was only sent to an embassy.

Topics: serving foreign governments, sovereign immunity, diplomatic relations, default judgments, how to serve legal papers

Summary

Background

Respondents are victims of the 2000 USS Cole bombing and their family members who sued the Republic of Sudan, alleging Sudan provided material support to al Qaeda. Because they sued a foreign government under the FSIA, they had to serve Sudan under section 1608(a)(3). The clerk mailed a service packet, return receipt requested, to "Republic of Sudan, Deng Alor Koul, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Embassy of the Republic of Sudan, 2210 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC." A signed receipt was returned, the District Court entered a $314 million default judgment, and plaintiffs sought to enforce it in New York. Sudan later appeared and challenged personal jurisdiction, arguing the mailing should have gone to the minister's office in Khartoum.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether section 1608(a)(3) is satisfied by mailing to a U.S. embassy. The majority read the statute most naturally to require that a packet be "addressed and dispatched" to the foreign minister at the minister's customary office in the minister's home country. It relied on ordinary meanings of "addressed" and "dispatch," related FSIA provisions, the Federal Rules, and the State Department's views about diplomatic channels. Based on that reading, the majority concluded mailing to the embassy was not enough and reversed the Court of Appeals.

Real world impact

Going forward, plaintiffs suing foreign states will generally need to send service directly to the foreign minister's office abroad or use diplomatic transmission through the Secretary of State. Default judgments obtained after mailing only to an embassy risk being found invalid. This ruling emphasizes uniform treatment and diplomatic sensitivities and allows plaintiffs to attempt service again under other FSIA methods.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas dissented, arguing an embassy can serve as a communication channel and that the signed receipt supported service; he would have left the Second Circuit's judgment in place.