{ "id": "RL34726", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "RL34726", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 452647, "date": "2016-05-17", "retrieved": "2016-05-24T19:07:15.647941", "title": "In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001: Claims Against Saudi Defendants Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)", "summary": "Practical and legal hurdles, including the difficulty of locating hidden Al Qaeda members and the infeasibility of enforcing judgments in terrorism cases, hinder victims\u2019 attempts to establish liability in U.S. courts against, and recover financially from, those they argue are directly responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks. Instead, victims have sued numerous individuals and entities with only indirect ties to the attacks, including defendants who allegedly provided monetary support to Al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001. Within the consolidated case In re Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, one such group of defendants was the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, several Saudi princes, a Saudi banker, and a Saudi charity. Plaintiffs argued that these Saudi defendants funded groups that, in turn, assisted the attackers.\nA threshold question in In re Terrorist Attacks was whether U.S. courts have the power to try these Saudi defendants. In August 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed dismissals of all claims against the Saudi defendants, holding that U.S. courts lack jurisdiction over the claims. Specifically, the court of appeals held that in this case, U.S. courts lack (1) subject matter jurisdiction over the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, because the Kingdom is entitled to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (the FSIA) and no statutory exception to immunity applies; (2) subject matter jurisdiction over the Saudi charity and Saudi princes acting in their official capacities, because they are \u201cagents or instrumentalities\u201d of the Kingdom and thus, under the FSIA, are entitled to immunity to the same extent as the Kingdom itself; and (3) personal jurisdiction over Saudi princes sued in their personal capacities, because the princes had insufficient interactions with the forum to satisfy the \u201cminimum contacts\u201d standard for personal jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment due process clause. \nIn 2011, the Second Circuit reversed itself with respect to the immunity of non-terrorist states, finding that the tort exception under the FSIA does not exclude terrorist acts that take place within the United States. In 2013, the court ordered these claims against Saudi Arabia and its agencies or instrumentalities be reinstated in the interest of justice to determine whether the tort exception applies. The district court again dismissed the claims in 2015 on the basis that the \u201centire tort\u201d defendants were alleged to have committed did not occur within the United States. This decision has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. \nIn a separate decision, the court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims against private Saudi banks on the basis that the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) does not permit secondary liability under an aiding-and-abetting theory. It also affirmed the dismissal of claims against these defendants brought under the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victims Protection Act, as well as claims brought as common law torts.\nTo address some issues related to the interpretation of the FSIA, among other related matters, Congress is considering the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (S. 2040, H.R. 3815).This report summarizes the FSIA and jurisdiction in cases against foreign defendants, analyzes the court decisions, and reviews legislative efforts to revise the FSIA and the ATA.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL34726", "sha1": "96761477ae8fd3f6cb130fd5f7ffa24327dc6c83", "filename": "files/20160517_RL34726_96761477ae8fd3f6cb130fd5f7ffa24327dc6c83.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL34726", "sha1": "d27f8a8b11d35de5ad77b35c4d561c1f9cb8299b", "filename": "files/20160517_RL34726_d27f8a8b11d35de5ad77b35c4d561c1f9cb8299b.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3919, "name": "International Law and U.S. Sovereignty" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 450478, "date": "2015-01-22", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T19:36:38.717639", "title": "In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001: Claims Against Saudi Defendants Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)", "summary": "Practical and legal hurdles, including the difficulty of locating hidden al Qaeda members and the infeasibility of enforcing judgments in terrorism cases, hinder victims\u2019 attempts to establish liability in U.S. courts against, and recover financially from, those they argue are directly responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks. Instead, victims have sued numerous individuals and entities with only indirect ties to the attacks, including defendants who allegedly provided monetary support to al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001. Within the consolidated case In re Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, one such group of defendants was the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, several Saudi princes, a Saudi banker, and a Saudi charity. Plaintiffs argued that these Saudi defendants funded groups that, in turn, assisted the attackers.\nA threshold question in In re Terrorist Attacks was whether U.S. courts have the power to try these Saudi defendants. In August 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed dismissals of all claims against the Saudi defendants, holding that U.S. courts lack jurisdiction over the claims. Specifically, the court of appeals held that in this case, U.S. courts lack (1) subject matter jurisdiction over the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, because the Kingdom is entitled to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (the FSIA) and no statutory exception to immunity applies; (2) subject matter jurisdiction over the Saudi charity and Saudi princes acting in their official capacities, because they are \u201cagents or instrumentalities\u201d of the Kingdom and thus, under the FSIA, are entitled to immunity to the same extent as the Kingdom itself; and (3) personal jurisdiction over Saudi princes sued in their personal capacities, because the princes had insufficient interactions with the forum to satisfy the \u201cminimum contacts\u201d standard for personal jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment due process clause.\nIn 2011, the Second Circuit reversed itself with respect to the immunity of non-terrorist states, finding that the tort exception under the FSIA does not exclude terrorist acts that take place within the United States. In 2013, the court ordered these claims against Saudi Arabia and its agencies or instrumentalities be reinstated in the interest of justice to determine whether the tort exception applies.\nTo address some issues related to the interpretation of the FSIA, among other related matters, the Senate passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, S. 1535 (113th Congress), but the House did not take it up or vote on its companion bill, H.R. 3143 (113th Congress). This report summarizes the FSIA and jurisdiction in cases against foreign defendants, analyzes the court of appeals decision, and reviews legislative efforts to revise the FSIA and other relevant statutes.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL34726", "sha1": "55099f8a074ebb4b671a0fc2cca66cd9b916eebd", "filename": "files/20150122_RL34726_55099f8a074ebb4b671a0fc2cca66cd9b916eebd.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL34726", "sha1": "144cfb6aa054c3e8d5d950436192d4e196e6369e", "filename": "files/20150122_RL34726_144cfb6aa054c3e8d5d950436192d4e196e6369e.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3919, "name": "International Law and U.S. Sovereignty" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc272117/", "id": "RL34726_2013Dec27", "date": "2013-12-27", "retrieved": "2014-02-03T19:46:03", "title": "In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001: Claims Against Saudi Defendants Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)", "summary": "This report summarizes the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and jurisdiction in cases against foreign defendants and analyzes the court of appeals decision. It also discusses legislative efforts to address these issues(S. 1535 and H.R. 3143).", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20131227_RL34726_4b3d03d5473041d82aee62fa7687286ba5a58f79.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20131227_RL34726_4b3d03d5473041d82aee62fa7687286ba5a58f79.html", "source": "pymupdf" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Terrorism", "name": "Terrorism" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "International affairs", "name": "International affairs" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Criminal justice", "name": "Criminal justice" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc463429/", "id": "RL34726_2012Dec20", "date": "2012-12-20", "retrieved": "2014-12-05T09:57:41", "title": "In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001: Dismissals of Claims Against Saudi Defendants Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)", "summary": "This report summarizes the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and jurisdiction in cases against foreign defendants and analyzes the recent court of appeals decision.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20121220_RL34726_f7b200f919e37bda3d357e930a0f98bf6299c0d1.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20121220_RL34726_f7b200f919e37bda3d357e930a0f98bf6299c0d1.html", "source": "pymupdf" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Terrorism", "name": "Terrorism" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Criminal justice", "name": "Criminal justice" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Law", "name": "Law" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc795547/", "id": "RL34726_2008Oct29", "date": "2008-10-29", "retrieved": "2016-01-13T14:26:20", "title": "In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001: Dismissals of Claims Against Saudi Defendants Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)", "summary": "This report summarizes the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and jurisdiction in cases against foreign defendants and analyzes the recent court of appeals decision. This report examines the legal bases for those dismissals.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20081029_RL34726_12cd0e1a406f41f163cf149348b42d546ea18ee9.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20081029_RL34726_12cd0e1a406f41f163cf149348b42d546ea18ee9.html", "source": "pymupdf" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Criminal justice", "name": "Criminal justice" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Law", "name": "Law" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Terrorism", "name": "Terrorism" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Intelligence and National Security", "National Defense" ] }