Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S. A. (Cuba) · ¶31
In practice, foreign sovereigns that were sued in U. S. courts could seek a “suggestion of immunity” from the State Department. Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U. S. 305, 311 (2010) (quotation marks omitted). The State Department usually acquiesced in those requests from friendly sovereigns. And the courts in turn followed the State Department’s lead by affording common-law immunity to those sovereigns. See, e.g., Ex parte Peru, 318 U. S. 578, 588 (1943) (“[C]ourts are required to accept and follow the executive determination that the vessel is immune”); see Samantar, 560 U. S., at 311–312 (explaining pre-FSIA practice); Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., 573 U. S. 134, 140 (2014).Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.