Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne Int'l Drilling Co. (15-423)

argument 15-423

Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne Int'l Drilling Co.

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 1m 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the legal significance of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) in this case?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument this morning in case fifteen four twenty three, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela versus Helmerick and Payne International Drilling Company. Ms. Stetson.

Ms. Stetson 0:11

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The exceptionally low Bell vs. Hood pleading standard under which a plaintiff's claims will survive dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as long as they are not wholly insubstantial or frivolous has no application in a Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act case. Subject matter jurisdiction bespeaks the court's power to decide a case. And before a co court in the United States may exercise that power over a foreign sovereign, it needs to decide that that sovereign is not entitled to immunity. Decide comes from section sixteen oh two of Title twenty eight. That phrase not entitled to immunity comes from Section thirteen thirty. What that means in practice is what this court has explained in Verlinden, which is that a court

Ms. Stetson 1:00

presented with a foreign sovereign immunities act claim against a sovereign must decide at the threshold of the litigation, must satisfy itself that jurisdiction exists.

Samuel A. Alito 1:12

I take it there will be instances or there could be instances in which the Court finds that there is jurisdiction, that there is no immunity, and then as the case uh develops in the fact finding stage, say, you know, I've I've made a mistake, there's immunity here. That could happen.

Ms. Stetson 1:29

It it could conceivably happen, Your Honor. It generally does not happen for a couple of reasons. The first is that immunity is unless it is pressed by the sovereign at the beginning, it's considered to be waived. So in circumstances where a sovereign, for example, doesn't raise a factual challenge to the side of the side.

Samuel A. Alito 1:50

And uh uh especially in a case like this where there is a uh uh I think a foreign a a subsidiary that's uh incorporated in domestic in uh domestically in Venezuela and there might be questions of the extent of overlapping management and so forth. Uh it it seems to me that that Might on if if if there's an initial finding of no immunity, the judge might In the course of uh hearing the case on the marriage, say, you know, really there's immunity here. That that's possible.

Ms. Stetson 2:19

It it's certainly possible. I think the more problematic issue is what happened here though, which is that the DC circuit.

Samuel A. Alito 2:25

This is the opposite where they didn't.

Ms. Stetson 2:26

That's that's precisely right. The the D C Circuit here concluded that because there might not be immunity, um what it said was at this stage of the litigation Um it was permitting the claims against the sovereign to go forward.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 2:40

Sounds to me like the twelve B six standard. That is. Have you stated a claim? that would entitle you to relief under this statute. So Yeah. To the extent that I I comprehend your position, it's there's no counterpart to twelve B one. There's no discrete twelve B one, twelve B six standard. It's one and the same. It's the twelve B six standard.

Ms. Stetson 3:12

Well Justice Ginsburg, I'm not I'm not sure that this case blends those two standards in that s way in that way. Here's what I'd say. With respect to a twelve B one motion. uh to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the FSIA, what the court is required to do then is to turn to what this court has described as all of those substantive, detailed federal standards that are essentially baked into the jurisdictional statute itself. So for purposes of establishing jurisdiction in an FSIA case, you certainly would bring, and we did bring, that motion under Section twelve B one, but what you do then is not just to apply this loose bell versus hood standard. What you do is you apply the relevant substantive federal standards that are included in those jurisdictional provisions.

Ms. Stetson 3:58

Now

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 3:58

And how d how would that differ from a twelve B six inquiry?

Ms. Stetson 4:02

It differs in a number of different respects, most importantly procedurally. Um with respect to a twelve B six in uh inquiry, of course, a sovereign who loses a twelve B six challenge wouldn't be entitled to the immediate interlocutory appeal of the sovereignty.