Republic of Hungary v. Simon (18-1447)

argument 18-1447

Republic of Hungary v. Simon

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 20m 9 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 central legal dispute in Republic of Hungary v. Simon?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument first this morning in case eighteen fourteen forty seven, Republic of Hungary versus Simon. Mr. Silbert.

Mr. Silbert 0:09

Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court. Comedy based abstention proceeds from a simple premise that this court has recognized since eighteen eighty five. When a complaint alleges that foreign parties harmed other foreign parties in a foreign country, a federal court can decline jurisdiction in favour of a foreign tribunal. In this case, plaintiffs allege that Hungary took property from Hungarians in Hungary during World War two. The United States long ago settled its claims against Hungary for wartime property confiscations. Yet plaintiffs ask an American court to apply American law and impose economy crushing liability on another sovereign nation for conduct in the sovereign's own territory that harmed its own nationals more than seventy five years ago.

Mr. Silbert 0:56

If the shoe were on the other foot. And the United States faced analogous claims in a foreign nations court The comedy grounds for dismissal would be clear and undeniable. Those grounds are every bit as strong when the United States orders Hungary to submit to the jurisdiction of an American court. If these same plaintiffs had sued private defendants For aiding and abetting the same property confiscations, their claims could be dismissed because of the risk of international friction. Plaintiffs say this case can't be dismissed. only because they sued sovereign defendants under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. But for three reasons that can't be right. First The FSIA's plain text tells us that it concerns only sovereign immunity from jurisdiction.

Mr. Silbert 1:44

It has no effect on non jurisdictional prudential doctrines like comedy based abstention. Second, The FSIA says that when sovereign defendants lack sovereign immunity, they should be treated the same as private defendants, not worse than private defendants. And finally, the FSAA undisputedly leaves in place other prudential grounds for declining jurisdiction, like forum non convenience, and there is no textual or other basis to treat comedy any differently.

John G. Roberts 2:16

Uh, Mr. Silbert, I want to pick up on that very last thing you said. Um But look at it from a different perspective. What independent role do you think international comedy plays given the fact that you already have or there are unchallenged forum known convenience grounds and active state grounds? Uh What is the independent significance of um international

Mr. Silbert 2:40

comedy? The the international comedy doctrine applies in different circumstances than FNC and Active State and it it serves different interests. The the Forum non doctrine in particular ultimately serves objectives of convenience and the practicalities of litigation. The the interests served by the international comedy doctrine are are quite different. They go to the

John G. Roberts 3:03

Well you talked about, you know, this case involves uh Hungarian citizens suing Hungary for events in Hungary. Those sound like considerations a court would take into account under forum known convenience.

Mr. Silbert 3:16

They they might be, Your Honor, but the the DC Circuit held in this case that the FNC doctrine does not apply. We think the international comedy doctrine clearly does apply. And even if they did happen to apply in the same cases, they do serve different objectives because the comedy doctrine is not ultimately about questions of convenience or practicality. Uh it's about the the dignitary interests that each sovereign has. when it has a competing claim to jurisdiction. Thank you, Counsel. Uh Justice Thomas.

Clarence Thomas 3:46

I s thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Uh counsel, I just uh a perhaps a somewhat preliminary question and bit different from the chief. If we come out, if we reverse in the following case in Germany's on hypothetically, uh what should we do with your case?

Mr. Silbert 4:04

Well, Your Honor, you you could then hold that there is no jurisdiction in this case and vacate the the D C circuit's decision. You also could go on to decide the comedy question, as this court's decision in Sinechem and in Levin Against Commerce Energy make clear.