Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S. A. (Cuba) · ¶101

Even with all that, Exxon might have a good argument under our precedents if it could show that Congress’s creation of a cause of action in Helms-Burton would be negated absent an abrogation of immunity. The key decision, as is evident in the majority opinion, is Department of Agricul ture v. Kirtz. There, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) supplied a cause of action against agencies of the Federal Government. Because the FSIA does not have a domestic equivalent—that is, a statute setting out a sovereign immunity framework with exceptions, see supra, at 3, n. 1—a plaintiff could never have sued the Government under the cause of action the FCRA gave unless that statute also (implicitly) abrogated immunity. We therefore concluded that the FCRA did so, lest its cause of action be “negat[ed].” Kirtz, 601 U. S., at 50. Absent such an abrogation, Congress would have “authorize[d] a suit…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.