Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S. A. (Cuba) · ¶96

To do the latter, Congress must make its intent to abrogate “unmistakably clear in the language of the statute.” Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Hous ing Service v. Kirtz, 601 U. S. 42, 49 (2024). That does not mean Congress must use magic words saying that immunity is abrogated. Nor does it mean, as to a foreign defendant, that Congress must amend the FSIA directly. But an abrogation of immunity must be “clearly discernible from the sum total” of Congress’s work. Id., at 54–55. The standard is a “stringent” one. Financial Oversight and Manage ment Bd. for P. R. v. Centro De Periodismo Investigativo, Inc., 598 U. S. 339, 346 (2023) (FOMB). And that is especially so when dealing with foreign (as opposed to domestic) immunity, because Congress enacted the FSIA specifically to deal with immunity questions—to serve as “a comprehensive framework for resolving any claim of…

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