case places allege that hungary took property from hungary and in hungary during world war two the united states long ago settled its claims against hungry for wartime property confiscation plaintiffs asked an american court to apply american law and impose a commie crushing liability on another sovereign nation for conduct in a sovereign's own territory that harmed its own nationals more than seventy five years ago if the shoe were on the other foot and the united states faced analogous claims in a foreign nations courts at comedy grounds for dismissal with the clear and undeniable those grounds are every bit as strong when the united states orders hungary to submit to the jurisdiction of an 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 ca dismissed only because they sued sovereign defendants under the foreign sovereign immunity that for three reasons that can't be right st the epis i s playing test tells us that it concerns only sovereign immunity from jurisdiction that has no effect on non jurisdiction all prudential doctrines like comedy based abstention nd the f s a says that when sovereign defendants lack sovereign immunity they should be treated the same as private defendants not worse than private event it's finally the f s a undisputedly least in places other prudential grounds for declining jurisdiction but for non convenience and there is no  basis to treat comedy any different mr sober and i want to pick up on that very last thing you said but looking at it from a different perspective what independent role do you think international comedy plays given the fact that you already have whether on challenge form known convenience grounds or not the state grounds what is the independent significance of international comedy of litigation the the interest shared by the international comedy doctrine are quite different they go to the you know you talked about you know this case involves hungary and susan suing hungering for events in hungary those sounds like considerations a court would take into account under for a known convenience they might be or out of but that the d c circuit held in this case that the f n c 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 all truly about questions of convenience or practicality it's about the dignitary interest that each sovereign has when it has a decision you also could go on to decide the comedy question as this court's decision in china can and in lending and commerce energy may clear and under the circumstances i think it would be useful if this court did go  forward and reach the comedy issue because that is a question that has divided the lower courts and there is substantial confusion about when calmly applies and how it applies and i think the lower courts would benefit from guidance from this court create common doctrines such as i think you have the authority to do it your honor i understand that this could this court has not created common law doctrines like that very much recently i do think with that sovereign immunity terminations were left to the executive and the executive was subjected to political or diplomatic pressure in individual cases how many did often that were asserting is easy for courts to apply and it demands nothing from the executive the courts start by asking a simple question does this complaint allege that foreign parties harmed other foreign parties thank you counsel justice prior to pick up with the last question one of the chief i think brought up how do we know that comedy is a separate doctrine rather than a motivating principle underlying a bunch of other doctors on convenience and  number of different doctrines of u s law including sovereign immunity and active state there is a separate and distinct comedy based of stench and doctrines as this court recognized as far back as the belgian land and it's clear that the application of that doctrine did not depend on factors of convenience or practicality because this court in eighty five dollars says the courts look to motives of international comedy and and its will and those principles are simply different than the ones the interests that f n c serves as to how to apply the doctrine again i think st of courtship ask is this a case alleging that a foreign party harmed another foreign party and if it is then i think  comedy bases tension may be available and i think the court should then ask the question that u s justice prior in your concurring opinion in kiel eble and that is is there nonetheless a distinct american interest in the controversy that that may warrant abstention and the court then ask is there a distinct american interest that would justify asserting jurisdiction here or if there is then a court may actual size jurisdiction but in this case where there isn't  should decline jurisdiction and it's staying so that the sovereign that has the paramount interest and the controversy and address it under the framework of its own legal system justice alito section six upon state level in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under life's circumstances this year a friend on the other side says refers not only to the extent of the liability but also the manner of liability and so for example if a private defendant would not be subjected to class action liability in a u s court then a sovereign defendant should not be subjected to class action liability in a u s court because that is a the same manner of liability and i would also note that my friend has no textual explanation for why the form non convenience on the jurisdictional issue with the plaintiffs in this case still have an argument based on their claim of the naturalization i don't think so your honor i i think if that argument had merit then it would apply in in every case where the plaintiffs in the next case would assert that there is surest action in other words if if the if the domestic take israel does not apply in instances of can and again even in the levin that a court can dismiss on threshold comedy grounds without st determining that it has subject matter jurisdiction that was the counsel i understand that principle but this is something different we have already decided we have knowledge or we would have already decided we had no jurisdiction having made that decision how was this become nothing more opinion i think justice on my you certainly could then hold that you have no jurisdiction in this case and vacate the court of appeals decision one final one final point as i read the record appears that this prudential international comedy doctrine was not really live the focus of your argument and briefing it seemed to me that the focus was on  e respondents have to exhaust their remedy this what you raised before us seems like a very different tack but i think in the circumstances of of this case justice sotomayor they mounted the same thing our point is that because of principles of comedy these places should st assert their claims in a hungary and court and have because they st sort of them in an american court and the american court should decline jurisdiction and the case should proceed originally in hungary i think whether you call that an extension principle or it was josh in principle the point is that hungary should have the st opportunity to address these cl five it says two things that directly refute that position by professor dodgin and professor gardner st it says expressly that courts decline jurisdiction in cases between foreigners out of motives of both convenience and international comedy so those are those are two separate doctrines but even more to the point it says that in some cases for exercising jurisdiction in cases involving foreign interests federal courts would seek the consent of the consul of the foreign nation with a competing claims which are stiction and clearly that foreign consul was not providing an opinion about matters relating to the convenience of the parties what the foreign consul was telling the courts was whether exercising jurisdiction in a u s court would be an affront to the dignity of the other nation with a competing claim to jurisdiction that is a comedy  you said you're not aware of going back to the old immunity doctrine the one that was supposed to have been displaced by the s s i a because that was an executive chairman but i don't think the fact that it was an executive given was cut the other need to do something about foreign a fantasist and were politically accountable and it seems that much of the happiness about that has to do with the fact that it was a kind of kitchen sink approach and nobody could test it and isn't that what you are asking us to replicate we're not justice kagan we're not asking federal courts to make any kind of foreign policy judgment what we're asking the courts to do is to deal with this court described as bedlam multi factor bouncing test on the convenience of the parties is one thing but also international friction and sense about foreign foreign dignity and all that which is justice kagan pointed out was channeled through the state department and here you're asking us to do it directly and i guess i'm still struggling with what's the difference between the regime you'd have us create and the regime that congress clearly wished to displace because it was producing for bedlam well in the in the regime the congress displaced the executive was forced to make foreign policy judgment in the regime that we're proposing the call ports would of void making foreign policy judgments by recognizing what you said we should be concerned about friction for example well i think you i think the courts can recognize the kinds of cases that would cause international friction is not a foreign policy judgment it's not just this course which i think my friend is that i'm going to my side let's say i disagree that sounds to me like a foreign policy judgment  effective jurisdiction in this case and extended the u s or d c common law to apply in an international context to regulate the conduct of foreigners or foreign sovereigns harming other foreigners in a foreign certain classes of cases that we have a duty to hear those certain classes of cases and we can't decide not to do it just because it would be inconvenient to us well that that is the general rule justice question is this court has recognized discrete exceptions and one of the exceptions as set out in canada involving and in the belgian land is that courts have discretion to decline to hear controversies between foreigners and then we get justice something of a bright line that if it's foreign defendants who injured foreign plaintiffs in a foreign country abstain is that accurate i think if there are no other relevant facts and circumstances then yes just as capital ok well what could be relevant facts and circumstances well let's say for example the controversy concerned a discre piece of artwork and that piece of artwork is hanging in a gallery in washington d c and let's say if the if the possessor of that his was worth gives it back to the wrong party that u s party could become liable then a and then there would be an interest in a u s court hearing the dispute and maybe that interest is sufficient to override the foreign interest how do you see this playing out in the hungary co where the plaintiffs would file a civil action as they wouldn't in any normal case hungary has waived by constitutional amendment any statute of limitations to these claims they would file claims under we believe the hungeri human rights is not an accident that is accurate justice kavanagh if there was a violation of the rules set out in the european convention of human rights like the rule under article six to a fair trial in impartial sotomayor when she asked you about the distinction between exhaustion and the comedy doctrine that we're talking about this morning that whether you call it abstention or exhaustion it means you've got a hungry st that they're functionally the same thing here or they're very closely related but if these plaintiffs had exhausted and hungry at st i gather from your answer to justice kavanagh that they still could not come here that the doctrine of international comedy that you propose would still be a bar is that  i think they they could come here and seek relief like any place that would leave the united in a foreign court could and whether the u s courts would would recognize the foreign judgment would be controlled by the principle fed out in the restatement of foreign believe the place should st bring these claims in hungary if they did and if they exhausted all available hungary and remedies and they came back here and it turned out that they were denied relief on grounds that were somehow illegitimate for reasons of if the hunger and remedies turned out to be a sham or a fraud then i think they could try to reopen these claims in the united states for a while about the cause it seems that all of the concerns you're identifying like the foreign key of the nature of this would still apply even if they had exhausted their claims and hungry i think it's appropriate for a u s court to ask in this context as a dozen other abstention contacts whether there are available remedies in the alternative form and i think that they too should st seek relief from hunger in court so you can call that an exhaustion principle but once they do if it turns out that hunger and court were not actually available they they could then press their claims in the united states i think that should be a high bar and it is a high bar under the restatement but i don't i don't think it's impossible in this case any more than any case involving a foreign judge thank you mr a man to wrap up mr sober thank you mr chief justice i'd like to emphasize two reasons why i think you should be skeptical of the arguments made by my friend on the other side st my friends position creates the anomalous result that is easier to sue for in sovereigns for conduct in their own territory than it is to sue private defendants for foreign conduct and that should be a big red flag if it is a case against private defendants causes too much international friction that problem only gets worse when foreign sovereigns are named as  defendants nd my friend never owns up to the reciprocity implications of her position the treatment of foreign sovereigns by the u s court suggests that the united states can be treated the same way by foreign court show if my friend is right that this case must proceed against hungary an analogous suit against the united states must also proceed in foreign nations court that is not what congress intended thank you counsel mr snyder mr chief justice that may have cleared the court for well over a century this court has recognized that when an american court encounters a case that raises serious foreign relations concern the court may have stand from the exercise of jurisdiction as a matter of international comedy it determines that the case would be better heard in a foreign forum nothing in the foreign sovereign immunity exact forecloses courts from applying back case by case abstention any more than it forecloses cards from applying a similar case by case analysis called for  facing equivalent claims because private foreign defendants are free to seek company based abstention section one thousand six hundred and six therefore requires that foreign sovereign defendants must be free to do so as well mr snyder and this question will not surprise you you emphasized this significance of the international relations context as a reason for international comedy but your client united states has to be loosely avoided taking a position on what the court should do given the international relations context this is the perfect time for you to fill that void why why hasn't the government told the courts what the foreign relations impact on the united states is wanted the united states doesn't feel that it has sufficient information about how the proceedings would unfold on in hungary to take how long is the case been going on that you haven't gotten any information yet your honor in the case has been going on  for quite some time i forget when exactly the complaint was filed in the case we have the same information that the court has in terms of the party presentation and the expert declaration of submitted in the case well i'm sure that's true but you also have other resources like our embassies there are communications between the two countries at the executive level that's true your honor the state department simply doesn't feel that it don't have sufficient information to make a decision about that our interest in this case though is that more broadly we think that the implication of the court of appeals decision would be detrimental to u s policy and as much as the court of appeal suggestion and petitioners suggestion takes us right back to the case by case approach to a was supposed to remedy well that no your honor let me to let me answer that in a couple of ways the st is that if you look to the text of the s s i a i think it's very clear from the attacks to that what the f s a was directed to address was sovereign immunity specifically and the doctrine that we're talking about here is neither an immunity nor is it only for sovereigns and this court has repeatedly recognize that in adopting the s s i a congress was not intending to displace every other doctrine so most closely analogous here the court and samatar recognize that the s s i a doesn't displace the very similar doctrine of official immunity that remains subject to the common law rules and we think the same thing is true here congress did not in the t the court in the belgian land specifically noted that american courts have looked to the views of foreign consuls and deciding whether to abstain to extend the jurisdiction or to exercise jurisdiction over cases between foreign parties and that in doing so it took account both of questions of convenience and also questions of international comity so we think that those are distinct strands thank you for justice prior with the same question the things congress seemed to be upset about and wanted to pass you know if i thought it was contradictory information from stood the american strawberry industry wants to sue the country immediately in our interests or not and how is america going to be hurt or help is that something we should take into account when comedy congress was concerned with ensuring that claim to specially american plaintiffs would have a forum in which they could seek redress and that they would not be denied that form based on political considerations come any accounts for that in a way that sovereign immunity did not just the so justice alito if this doctrine is all about the effect on foreign relations if i were a district judge and i received a motion asking me to abstain on comedy grounds my st question would be what does the government of the united states think about the foreign relations impact of this of this law want to be in the position of having to answer that question every time this doctrine is asserted we don't think so your honor we think that there are certainly circumstances in which courts can make decisions about whether to abstain without needing participation from the united states government there are certain considerations that are cross cutting that and that will always apply so for example the united states certainly has more of an interest in adjudicating claims brought by the united states  relations concerns your honor we think that it makes sense for the courts to be able to do that when this court has expressed concern about the capabilities of federal courts in addressing foreign relations issues the concern has been primarily about courts creating tension unintentionally this is a very different context the question here is whether courts make a stain from the exercise of jurisdiction and they will rarely create unintentional international friction by doing that so the question is just whether you should completely foreclose them from doing so and we don't think that you should would grant immunity should be granted or not i like my my predecessor colleagues quite questions indicate don't know how that pressure would stop in this situation but i also don't know why that judgment has or not already been made by congress meaning if we accept the argument in germany that  expropriations has to be as an international norm involved only expropriations of non nationals and not domestic people and we dismissed that case  or if we ruled the other way and we say congress intended for those suits to be in the united states that yes takings from nationals could have of form here i'm not sure how we can substitute the court could substitute its judgment for congress well your honor we don't think that the court would be substituting its judgment for congress when i've heard of the court of flies and  nasa's it is by definition determining that in a circumstance where congress in the statute allowed for jurisdiction that the court is not going to exercise that jurisdiction so we don't think that  why wouldn't the other dufferin said already exist like the form the inconvenience take care of virtually any other consideration  would be to be addressed meaning the issue of foreign relations tension is exactly what the f s i a was intended to avoid the judgment of congress that in designated circumstances those tensions should not lead to immunity why should they be to extension your honor i think that us i had a more specific purpose and you can see that from a text it was about the circumstances in which courts should apply categorical immunity but the court has recognized that that didn't deal with every other company based doctrine that preexisted the s s i a thank you counsel justice kagan mr shiner you told the chief justice that the state department didn't have enough information to make a decision in this case if the state department doesn't have that information our court had a well your honor we think that there's something of a difference between the scope of the decision that a court makes on the scope of interest of the decision that the state department makes when a court makes a decision about whether to abstain in a particular case the court of justice is doing just  making the decision about that particular case based on the evidence presented by the parties in that particular case man would think that if that's exactly what the state department would be doing here too and been looking at this particular case the plants in this case the alternative forum that hungary is providing in this case and they would make a decision i mean some might say that what's going on here is that the state department is expecting the courts to do the difficult and sensitive and some might say dirty work for you i don't think that's right your honor the issue that the state department has and particularly indicated that it doesn't feel it has enough information to provide a recommendation on is how this case would proceed in hungary and that's a decision the courts already make in the context of the foreign non comediennes doctrine and courts are well suited to address the adequacy of an alternative forum we know that because again they do that already in the form non contact thanks when i asked  silbert about the historical basis of the statue and he gave me the belgian land case as his principal case showing that this comedy based doctrine that you're espousing in fact has such a basis in your brief you that this court has described the belgian land as a precursor of modern form not a convenient doctrine but if you look at the belgian land it's describing a whole swath of cases that involve different considerations so relevant to modern forms on convenience doctrine  nothing to do with abstention and would apply domestically normal so what do you say to that is what you're arguing for really just an exhaustion argument no i don't think it's an exhaustion argument i mean we think there are some similarities between the two but in our view it's appropriate for a court at the front end to make a decision about whether it would be appropriate to abstain based in part on whether there is an adequate form available and the other core that sure sounds like exhaustion doctrine to me get what courts do at the front and they say you exhausted your remedies elsewhere before we take up your case that is exhaustion if you want to be clear i'm not saying that the question is whether they have already exhausted them i'm saying that the question is whether the remedies that would be available elsewhere are adequate and so that we do that all the time under the rubric of exhaustion counsel ok fine let's say they have to exhaust why if if if the jewish victims of the holocaust were deemed non citizens stripped of their citizenship at least in germany why should they then have to go exhaust remedies elsewhere but we haven't taken a position on that your honor but let me point point you to a case in which we have there's an anarchist refiled in appropriate on international comedy grounds because the united states has worked with france to establish an administrative mechanism by which claimants who lost property during world war two in france can secret arrest for those necessarily appropriate with you know your honor we have not taken that bright line approach one else in that circumstance should a court ask itself well st i'd say that the court should look at that circumstance to the adequa alternative form ok if the alternative form is adequate anything else i think in that circumstance there would be a very strong case for abstention what would could defeat if the united states had some strong interest in the subject matter and i want to know how would a district court determine that so for example if the property that were at issue were in the united states that might give the united states a stronger interest if there were some do all that on its own or to seek the guidance of the state department in that circumstance well i think your honor the certainly the court should not foreclose the possibility of the district court doing so in the state department provides input but we think that there may also be circumstances in which a district court can do that without the state department then fred there may be circumstances in which there's a statute that expresses a particular united states interest in the subject matter things along those lines on which the district court could base its decision  you're proposing of comedy sounds like a little bit of this and a little bit of that it incorporates some concepts from exhaustion and also sounds like for non convenience it also sounds like it incorporates some of the same considerations of foreign relations and friction with on their countries that are addressed by the foreign sovereign immunity act itself so would it subsumes the need for some of these other doctrines like what role w litigants and their convenience and the convenience to witnesses things along those lines in an ordinary case that makes sense but in a case that presents significant foreign relations concerns we don't think it makes sense to give way to the point of choice of form of the convenience of witnesses instead it makes sense to look to those who have just for one moment in this case the foreign country or one of its arms is one of the litigants so isn't its concerns aren't its concerns take into account and for n era has consistently been motivated by the twin considerations of justice and urgency to that end the united states has advocated the concerned parties foreign governments and nongovernmental organizations to resolve matters of holocaust or restitution and compensation justly through dialogue negotiation and cooperation wherever possible the potential availability of company based abstention and united states courts plays an important role in our diplomatic efforts on that issue accordingly while the want to start by addressing the united states interest in having these type of claims adjudicated in u s courts this country has a strong and long standing interest in directly helping holocaust victims justice today is pearl harbor day and it marks seventy nine years exactly since the u s was drawn into world war two the reason the atrocities that places like auschwitz for stopped and were exposed to the world is due in large part to our soldiers who sacrificed in the name of the united states this court has held over and over that our constitution assigns responsibility for foreign policy to the elected branches not to court and over the last seventy years those branches that have repeatedly taken steps to make it easier for plaintiffs to pursue holocaust era claims likely in u s courts for example more than two decades before the f s a was and that did the executive branch waived application of the act of state doctrine and holocaust air expropriation cases explaining in the so of other legislation to make it easier for plaintiffs to pursue holocaust era claims in u s court hungry in the u s now ask the card to recognize and attention doctrine that would permit court to overall congress in foreign policy determination with no involvement on the executive but the doctrine runs afoul of separation of powers principle and has no foundation in our legal history it would also undo the primary purpose of the f i a which was to eliminate ad hoc determination about when courts should exercise jurisdiction over foreign powers aren't based on the foreign policy concern of the moment hungry want a court to decide whether these are the type of claims that should be heard in the u s court but congress has already decided that they are it affected the doctrine of international comedy on the cheap does seem that that your the theory of your argument would sweep very broadly and call into question not only for him no inconvenience but the act of state directed to foreign sovereign immunity or things like that so my friend just over describes the comedy in korea directed to the dignity interest of the foreign sovereign to the extent that's different from a foreign sovereign immunity in korea it's hard given the nature of international relations it's easy to invision cases where it would seem particularly inappropriate for united states courts to get involved in litigation i don't know if this is one of them were or not i mean is there room for any kind of a safety valve under your series where the doctrine is well maybe not available in the normal course is appropriate in particularly that if you disagree that there is no doctrine of comedy based of tension that's of a although it should at least only be available when the executive branch comes in and asks for a specific case to be dismissed that would respect the constitutional assignment of foreign policy authority to the elected branches and would maintain political accountability for those kinds of decisions thank you counsel justice thomas thank you mr chief justice if we reverse the  again this is a hypothetical if we were to reverse it in the germany case what should we do with this case i think you should affirm in this case i mean st off i think you should not reverse in the germany case i think there's a strong textual argument the tak ings that are themselves of genocide are covered by the expropriation exception i also want to say there are there reasons maybe to views the facts alleged in the germany case differently from the facts alleged in this case in this case the plaintiffs allege that hungary took every single thing they owned including things that are necessary for survival and that is more clearly a genocidal type of taking perhaps than the takings that are alleged in germany but there are also these alternative arguments that are available and that were raised by us below which is that  in this case but of course as you know germany didn't you grant to start on that question it's a question that goes to the subject matter jurisdiction and perhaps you're asking why we chose to address it even though it's not one of the questions presented in this case by hungry and that's because as i said will allow part to stay damages actions when there are for example ending proceedings in another forum there's no such thing proceedings in this case thank you justice prior thank you of a group africa says you don't understand we don't have a partial anymore and we have a system for dealing with it it's called the truth and reconciliation committee please don't mess up what we're trying to do judge in new york dismiss the case or use comedy was supposed to happen on your theory i think we could imagine in that case perhaps the state department would come in and say it ok ok i see what you're doing you're taking some factors and saying it doesn't use erode exist exists but only a few things are allowed to appeal to comedy is that right now justice breyer we think it doesn't exist but we think if the court disagrees with that it should at least i've got that point but the  my question is gone you think you don't exist doesn't exist so when the people from botswana sue on apartheid the south african government and the south african government says please don't do this you're going to mess up our tr sometimes and that's where deference to well considered views of the executive branch that's one of your without one right yes then you agree with the general practice of other nations but taking the reciprocal practice of the nation directly implicated basic principle is that professors are asking district courts to make foreign power the determination that's not the constitutional role of a district court i mean under separation of powers principle those determinations are assigned to our elected branches here congress has made comedy based decision about what types of claimants can be brought in u s courts in berlin do you agree that statute is saying well south africa you're trying to end the bitterness caused by a part but that's i mean if all of the requirements of the right to say are satisfied then yes i guess that executive branch can come in and try to intervene they have not done so in this case they've been invited multiple times to express their view about whether this state should be dismissed and that is includ i think you really do have to choose between two alternatives your primary argument is never this doctrine doesn't exist there are no circumstances in which a case could be dismissed based on as if there were a case of some time in the future where our going forward would cause cause grave foreign policy problems your answer has to be know but there can be cases that go where they don't fall within any of those dr mostly could have very serious foreign policy implications i mean that your argument might be right but you have to either you have to say yes even if it means war even if it means very serious foreign policy problems we want you to say never or you have your full back argument which is well maybe if the state department comes in and says please do not go forward with this will cause terrible international repercussions i'm not so full back argument but that argument negates your primary argument that this doctrine never existed and therefore it doesn't exist at this they haven't done that here and as a fallback and it is an alternative argument because it would sort of undermine our arguments about comprehensiveness and clarity of roles but as a backup our human rights thing you know if you're going to dismiss the case based on foreign policy circumstances that could be that this is just a very very narrow doctrine all we would need to decide is if it does exist in some form i mean justified i think it would be helpful to provide more guidance than that precisely because the s s i a was meant to to get rid of the system where you made these sort of case by case had talked to terminations based on the foreign policy considerations of the moment it was intended to get rid of what this card is called the bedlam of these sort of inconsistent rules and sort of as i mentioned the ad hoc determination of whether and when courts should exercise darst action and so if you're going to say sometimes you can have company based a function it would be helpful to have some guidance about when that is and i think the the factors that hunger united states have pointed to that's just a subset of factors that are already accounted for in the farming on convenience doctrine and those are the factors that are already accounted for in the f s a and generally in the foreign sovereign immunity doctrine customary international law for expropriation from the national do you also believe that we should address this comedy issue notwithstanding that we have there was no jurisdiction i think you would need to because even if you think that there is no jurisdiction under the theory that these takings are genocidal and and therefore violate international law as i mentioned earlier the plaintiff still should have a right to make a case that they would fall in under whatever rule you announce does apply so as i mentioned some of the plaintiffs were never hungary nationals they live in occupied territories the rest of the plaintiffs were certainly stripped of all of their rights and p nationality and citizenship before they were kicked out of their homes and forced into ghettos and then deported to be murdered in the death camp all right one follow up question to this assume that we find a n concern for commercial relations between the us and a foreign sovereign so it does suggest some equity principles or comedy principles that have guided courts in the those addressed the interest of the two different type of court systems and hearing the case and so i think those cases are examples of harm done convenience cases not how many cases but if you're going to try to actually answer your question you know i think what you would need is some indication from one of the much the same subject i mean just think about these cases particularly i think it's not yours but the under a case on the th circuit which involves very similar claims it had potential damages a mountain to forty percent of hungary p so this is a suit that could essentially bankrupt a foreign nation so that it seemed as though it was screaming severe international friction why shouldn't we be able to acknowledge something like  that you know i think any sort of speculation about the damages amount that would be implicated in this case is just that it's pure speculation at this point no class has been certified we don't know how large the class would be that if it were started fide and so i don't think a district  very front end of the case should be saying well maybe if it was a giant class and they proved other damages it would be too much money and therefore we should just abstain from exercising jurisdiction that's just not normally the way that kind of inquiry work and again that you know if if the united states thinks that's a problem they can come in and say so as they have i mean howard is very different from many of the other axis allied assets the betting countries and that it has never taken any steps to reach a comprehensive settlement if you have you have countries like germany switzerland france austria who have cooperated with the united states to create these alternative for us to resolve these claims on a global basis that is going to be my next question is how i can because the s g tells us that if we if we don't recognize so what's your answer to the solicitor general's position on that score and do you really think that we can treat hungary differently because of those efforts have not succeeded as well at this court explained in the that it was actually the filing of class action lawsuits related to holocaust era claims that spurred those other countries to create these alternative for in cooperation with the united states and so i think it's absolutely backwards to say well we should just get rid of all these states and that's going actually be the thing that motivates the remaining countries to come to the table and in terms of whether we should treat them differently the united states treats them differently i mean if it came into this case and the district court uninvited and asked the district court to dismiss that the austrian owned company that was the other defendant precisely because austrian companies have come to the table and created this alternative way to resolve these disputes on a global basis they didn't do the same for hungary or the hungary on a railroad and so the united states is obviously treating them differently in that respect and it's perfectly appropriate for the court to do so as well will your position leaf privately give in a better position than litigants it won't i mean i don't think so the country united states actually did come in and specifically request that the cases be dismissed that's under open august lupica on the th circuit the st as in the th circuit and the courts in those cases give dispositive way to the united states is request that the seas be dismissed based on foreign policy concerns so it's just not true that it's easier to sue foreign sovereigns than private scientists in fact the only holocaust era class actions or most of them that have actually reached a substance of result in the u s courts have been against private companies country are are subject to domestic tastings laws you've argued in this suit that the holocaust and human rights forms an exception to that rule but you've also pressed the point alluded to it today that even  what we should do about it i'm adding development because much in this part because it's not actually the question that's presented not the basis that the that the d c circuit relied on in deciding the two cases you know i think if that is an issue that would need to be resolved i dream and i think that's the most appropriate way to resolve it since it hasn't really been briefed and wasn't squarely presented in germany sir petition thank you justice kavanagh good morning miss harrington doctrine exists and existed at the time and you've made important arguments as have professors dodge and gardiner that the doctrine doesn't exist and i understand those but put those aside for now if the doctrine does exist then the question is how to apply it and i did not view it necessarily again assuming exists as requiring a case by case foreign policy or international friction of valuation in part for reasons others of express that would not be predictable it would be hard for courts to do that would necessarily be quotable given the number of would be involved hearing similarly situated plaintiffs rather i viewed the doctrine of least as has been articulating as reflecting a general foreign policy concern and then the question becomes the particulars of the doctrine and had understood the argument to be that of form defendants harm form parties in a foreign country and remedies are available in a foreign country then an american on domestic state law and the piddly the expiration exception that we're relying on here expressly applies to conduct that occurred abroad it's principally directed to nationalization of property and that has to occur abroad it also we think it also  applies here where you have genocide all taking but there's no reason that those should shouldn't also be covered if they if they happen abroad and so to the extent any such doctrine like that to think that we think it was plainly displaced by the f s a and it was not you know it was sort of court is doing is asking whether there is action not making a determination about whether a court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction that plainly exists and so that sort of separation of powers and small the conservative way the court should sort of wade into foreign policy but terminations point in the opposite direction of the two types of cases here if a court says i'm going to stay from exercising jurisdiction it's countermanding foreign policy determinations that congress has already made in the a would be a determination that there is no jurisdiction in the st place and you know that's a determination that's up to congress to make takes that point thank you very much mr and if you judge the spirit morning miss harrington i have a question about the nature of this kind of comedy doctrine especially as compared to forty nine dollars convenience so everybody agrees that for non convenience doctrine survives in assman of the s s i a and i'm wondering why in your view is that because for non convenience doctrine is the background principle that's incorporated somehow into the statute itself or is that because courts retain the power to develop it as a common law doctrine and if the latter why wouldn't they retain the power to develop a doctrine of comedy like hungry proposes here so it's more the latter i mean there's a general background principle that statutes don't display the common law you know sort of generally applicable common law doctrine unless there's some indication in the statute itself that that's the disagree we think it was also subsumed within and displaced by the f i a because as mr my time mr silver described the comedy based inquiry what the court of supposed to do was think about the dignity interest of the foreign sovereign it's really hard to see how that is separate from the foreign sovereign immunity doctrine in a way that was not intended to account for so your argument is that courts may retain some the soroti to recognize some of these detention based doctrines life or not convenience but the structure are not gary and nationals and others have a claim to their citizenship having been severed by the genocide is that a claim that you raise below at just of course it's pointed out it's not one that's developed here it wasn't part of the is the type of thing that u s courts should hear and executive even after being invited multiple times to disagree with respect to this specific case has declined to do that in these circumstances a court should not be able to step in and disregard a statutory jurisdiction based on its own assessment of and just one final point i would like to just say another word on the other question that you're considering this morning in the germany case the question is whether a taking that is itself genocide is a taking that violates international law under the plane and broad tex it is and considering that question i really invite the court to consider the facts of this case which arise out of the worst atrocities in human history here hungary took everything the plaintiff owned including possessions necessary to survive such as shelter clothing and medicine and the undisputed purpose of hungary's taking us was to bring about the physical destruction of jews in hungary that is genocide and it is hard to imagine a more vivid example of property taking themselves violate international law indeed the only u interest that the general's office or the department of justice has identified in this case in the ten years of litigation that delay to getting it is the moral imperative to provide victims of the holocaust with some relief in their lifetime there's no way to read the text of the expiration exceptions have three points st i did not hear my friend give you any real workable limiting principle or safety valve for her position and i think the policy is with justice pryor and justice alito brought that out the fact is if you accept my friend's interpretation of the s s i a then u s courts not only can but must hear cases alleging that foreign sovereigns harmed other foreigners in foreign countries there is no doubt that those cases will be asserted here and some of them any u s interest on the other side and when u s courts decide cases like that because meaningful harm to international relations and they expose the united states to similar litigation in foreign courts  point i think the test of the s s i a just does not do the work that my friend needed to do the expropriation exception withdraws sovereign immunity from jurisdiction it doesn't do anything else that comedy abstention d the fs i am by about one hundred years so the question is whether the f s a affirmatively displaced it and clearly it is not if the f s a actually displaced all comedy defenses in favor of foreign sovereign as my friend proposes and the act of state for also be displaced but this court held in all men that it isn't if congress wants to go further and invite the kinds of foreign policy consequences that will follow if are compelled to hear cases like this one then congress can certainly do that but that is not what congress said in the f s a and the court should not take on those policy foreign policy risks on their own without clear instructions from congress and the executive last point i think you should take the reciprocity concerns in this case very seriously because it's an unfortunate d fact but a fact we all know that the united states government has sometimes fallen short of the ideals of justice that every nation should aspire to meet and some people say that the united states owes large outstanding debt for injustices that were committed in this country that's a profoundly important question maybe one day congress will address it or maybe one day will come before this court that we can all agree that the remedies for the worst injustices committed by the united states in the united states should not be decided by a hungary and judge applying hungary and law from a courtroom in budapest for the same reasons the merits of this case should not be decided by an american judge applying american law in washington d