Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-351_o7jp.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

rights violations to be especially deserving of redress only 
when accompanied by infringement of property rights.  We 
have  previously  rejected  efforts  to  insert  modern  human
rights law into FSIA exceptions ill suited to the task.  Nel-
son,  507  U. S.,  at  361  (commercial  activity  exception  does
not encompass claims that foreign state illegally detained 
and  tortured  United  States  citizen,  “however  monstrous 
such abuse undoubtedly may be”).  We do so again today. 

We have recognized that “ ‘United States law governs do-
mestically  but  does  not  rule  the  world.’ ”    Kiobel  v.  Royal 
Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U. S. 108, 115 (2013) (quoting Mi-
crosoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U. S. 437, 454 (2007)).  We 
interpret the FSIA as we do other statutes affecting inter-
national relations: to avoid, where possible, “producing fric-
tion in our relations with [other] nations and leading some
to  reciprocate  by  granting  their  courts  permission  to  em-
broil the United States in expensive and difficult litigation.” 
Helmerich, 581 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 12) (internal quota-
tion marks omitted); RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Com-
munity, 579 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2016) (slip op., at 7–8) (in-
Influenced  and  Corrupt
terpreting  civil  Racketeer 
Organizations Act “to avoid the international discord that
can result when U. S. law is applied to conduct in foreign 
countries”);  Kiobel,  569  U. S.,  at  116  (interpreting  Alien
Tort Statute so as not to “adopt an interpretation of U. S. 
law that carries foreign policy consequences not clearly in-
tended by the political branches”). 

As a Nation, we would be surprised—and might even in-
itiate reciprocal action—if a court in Germany adjudicated
claims by Americans that they were entitled to hundreds of
millions of dollars because of human rights violations com-
mitted by the United States Government years ago.  There 
is no reason to anticipate that Germany’s reaction would be 
any different were American courts to exercise the jurisdic-
tion claimed in this case.