Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S. A. (Cuba) · ¶107

The majority next insists that its reading is necessary to guarantee victims of confiscation “fully effective remedies,” ante, at 13 (emphasis in original)—which sounds good, but turns out to be a hollow promise. The majority’s thinking is that if the FSIA’s jurisdictional-immunity provision applies, only a few suits would “make it out of the starting blocks” (because only a few would satisfy the FSIA’s exceptions). Ante, at 12. But the added suits that will “make it out” under the majority’s view will still falter before the finish line. That is because, as noted earlier, the FSIA makes the property of foreign states immune from execution to satisfy a judgment, unless certain exceptions apply. See supra, at 4. Although Exxon contests that those executionimmunity provisions govern here, see Brief for Exxon 48, the majority does not, see ante, at 20–21, and n. 5. So under its view, even…

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