Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-254_5iel.pdf
Page Number: 15

12 

WATER SPLASH, INC. v. MENON 

Opinion of the Court 

signatory has ever rejected Water Splash’s view. 

* 

* 

* 
In  short,  the  traditional  tools  of  treaty  interpretation
unmistakably demonstrate that Article 10(a) encompasses 
service by mail.  To be clear, this does not mean that the 
Convention  affirmatively  authorizes  service  by  mail. 
Article 10(a) simply provides that, as long as the receiving 
state  does  not  object,  the  Convention  does  not  “interfere
with  . . .  the  freedom”  to  serve  documents  through  postal
channels.  In other words, in cases governed by the Hague
Service  Convention,  service  by  mail  is  permissible  if  two
conditions  are  met:  first,  the  receiving  state  has  not  ob­
jected  to  service  by  mail;  and  second,  service  by  mail  is
authorized  under  otherwise-applicable  law.  See  Brock­
meyer, 383 F. 3d, at 803–804. 

Because  the  Court  of  Appeals  concluded  that  the  Con­
vention  prohibited  service  by  mail  outright,  it  had  no 
occasion  to  consider  whether  Texas  law  authorizes  the 
methods  of  service  used  by  Water  Splash.    We  leave  that 
question, and any other remaining issues, to be considered
on remand to the extent they are properly preserved. 

For these reasons, we vacate the judgment of the Court
of  Appeals,  and  we  remand  the  case  for  further  proceed­
ings not inconsistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered.

 JUSTICE  GORSUCH  took  no  part  in  the  consideration  or 

decision of this case. 
—————— 

p. 5 (Apr. 1989) (criticizing “certain courts in the United States” which
“had concluded that service of process abroad by mail  was not permit­
ted  under  the  Convention”),  online  at  https://assets.hcch.net/upload/
scrpt89e_20.pdf; Report on the Work of the Special Commission on the
Operation  of  the  Hague  Convention  on  the  Service  Abroad  of  Judicial 
and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, Nov. 21–
25 1977, 17 I. L. M. 312, 326 (1978) (observing that “most of the States
made  no  objection  to  the  service  of  judicial  documents  coming  from
abroad directly by mail in their territory” (emphasis added)).