Summary Analysis
R-27
DATE: 2019-03-26
DOCKET: 16-1094
NAME: Republic of Sudan, Petitioner v. Rick Harrison, et al.
WORTHY: True
OPINION: Court
AUTHOR: Alito
JOINING: Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
GOOD: Yes
PAGES: 17
OPINION: Dissenting
AUTHOR: Thomas
JOINING: None
GOOD: No
PAGES: 9
Case Commentary
The Court has decided (keeping in mind that I am easily confused; and so, may have this all backwards) that to Serve (as in, giving notice that one is being sued or must appear in court) a Foreign Sovereign (such as Sudan in this particular case), Service must be delivered to the appropriate Official in their Home Country (say in the city of Khartoum, the Capital of Sudan) and not their local Embassy (as located inside the Grand Old US of A).I am inclined to agree... only because this is both what the US Government urges and how it behaves. In other words, the US does not Recognize (as being Legally Valid or Binding) Service rendered to it at its Foreign Embassies. In other words, if you want to sue Uncle Sam, you have to Serve Notice in Washington, not Istanbul.
As a philosophical concern, I ask what is a Government and where is it located?
I mean, it may seem like a silly question. But please keep in mind, varying arms of the US Government (different courts, certainly) have had different points of view as to the rules regarding the case at hand... and numerous other topics, as well.
So, who talks for the US of A?
In actuality, it's a sort of mishmash that is often self-contradictory.
Similarly, where the Sudan Government begins and ends and what opinion it may or may not hold concerning a Terrorist Attack (as propagated by a Third Party against the Military Forces of a Foreign Government in yet another Foreign Country) is likely far more complicated.
Throw in Sovereign Immunity and it does not seem like this lawsuit should go forward.
Oh, did I not say? Terrorists attacked a US Naval Vessel in Yemen and some folks (maybe everyone, as what do I know) believe Sudan was involved. If they were, it's clearly an Act of War (no more or less honourable than a Drone Strike that yields Collateral Damage, something for which I doubt the US of A would be keen to pay damages). And if not, the lawsuit is a nuisance, based on a money grab and little more.
Either way, if we are to honour Foreign Sovereignty (should we honour Foreign Sovereignty) Service (for Lawsuits, which I believe, for the most part, are barred in the first place) should be delivered to the Appropriate Agency in the Foreign Government's Capital... and not some outpost (such as a Embassy), just like We insist upon.
Finally, let me make note, I believe Thomas (as the Dissenter) was technically right. But as we all know (or should by now), that means little when it comes to the law.