Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-351_o7jp.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2021) 

11 

Opinion of the Court 

national law’s preservation of sovereign immunity for vio-
lations of human rights law.  As the International Court of 
Justice recently ruled when considering claims brought by
descendants of citizens of Nazi-occupied countries, “a State
is not deprived of immunity by reason of the fact that it is 
accused of serious violations of international human rights 
law.”  Jurisdictional  Immunities  of  the  State  (Germany  v. 
Italy), 2012 I. C. J. 99, 139 (Judgt. of Feb. 3); see also Brad-
ley & Goldsmith, Foreign Sovereign Immunity, Individual 
Officials, and Human Rights Litigation, 13 Green Bag 2d 9,
21 (2009).  Respondents would overturn that rule whenever 
a violation of international human rights law is accompa-
nied by a taking of property.
  Germany’s  interpretation  of  the  exception  is  also  more
consistent with the FSIA’s express goal of codifying the re-
strictive theory of sovereign immunity.  §1602.  Under the 
absolute or classical theory of sovereign immunity, foreign
sovereigns are categorically immune from suit.  Altmann, 
541 U. S., at 690.  Under the restrictive view, by contrast,
immunity extends to a sovereign’s public but not its private 
acts.  Ibid.  Most of the FSIA’s exceptions, such as the ex-
ception  for  “commercial  activity  carried  on  in  the  United 
States,” comport with the overarching framework of the re-
strictive theory.  §1605(a)(2).

It is true that the expropriation exception, because it per-
mits the exercise of jurisdiction over some public acts of ex-
propriation, goes beyond even the restrictive view.  In this 
way, the exception is unique; no other country has adopted 
a comparable limitation on sovereign immunity.  Restate-
ment  (Fourth)  of  Foreign  Relations  Law  of  the  United
States §455, Reporters’ Note 15 (2017). 

History  and  context  explain  this  nonconformity.    As 
events such as Secretary Hull’s letter and the Second Hick-
enlooper Amendment demonstrate, the United States has 
long sought to protect the property of its citizens abroad as