Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S. A. (Cuba) · ¶87
Third, the Cuban government defendants (and the dissent) assert that Congress could have more clearly displaced the FSIA if it wanted to do so. It is true that Congress could have of course “address[ed] the question” of foreign sovereign immunity “in different and arguably even more obvious terms.” Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz, 601 U. S. 42, 51 (2024). But this Court’s precedents repeatedly emphasize that Congress does not need to use “magic words” to abrogate sovereign immunity. Id., at 48 (quotation marks omitted); see FAA v. Cooper, 566 U. S. 284, 291 (2012); Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U. S. 62, 76 (2000); Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin, 599 U. S. 382, 388 (2023). Congress must simply make a waiver of sovereign immunity “clearly discernable” from the “sum total” of its work. Kirtz, 601 U. S.,…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.