Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S. A. (Cuba) · ¶102
But that is not true here, because reading Helms-Burton as it was written—that is, without an abrogation provision—does not “negate” the cause of action it authorized. Kirtz, 601 U. S., at 50. The sovereign entities included within Helms-Burton’s cause of action are not agencies of the Federal Government, as in Kirtz, but foreign instrumentalities. And the FSIA sets out a “comprehensive framework” listing the circumstances in which such an instrumentality is subject to suit. Altmann, 541 U. S., at 699. So unlike in Kirtz, a plaintiff here may be able to use the cause of action Congress provided without our reading an abrogation of immunity into the substantive statute. In other words, a plaintiff can sue a foreign instrumentality under Helms-Burton even if that statute does not also abrogate immunity. All the plaintiff must do is establish that an FSIA exception to immunity…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.