Republic of Sudan v. Harrison

In 1998, al Qaeda bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, causing hundreds of deaths. Victims and their families sued the Republic of Sudan under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), alleging Sudan provided material support to al Qaeda. The plaintiffs served the legal papers by mailing the summons and complaint to the Sudanese Embassy in Washington, D.C., and sending a copy to the foreign minister via the embassy. Sudan moved to dismiss, arguing that the FSIA requires service to be accomplished by the court clerk mailing the documents directly to the foreign minister's office. The district court denied the motion, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to settle conflicting interpretations among the circuit courts.

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the FSIA requires strict compliance with its terms. Service must be mailed by the clerk of the court directly to the head of the foreign state’s ministry of foreign affairs. The method used by the plaintiffs, mailing the documents to the Sudanese Embassy and then forwarding them internally, was invalid. The judgment of the Second Circuit was vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act requires that a service packet be mailed directly to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs by the clerk of the court, or if service by the plaintiff's counsel by mailing it to the foreign state's embassy in Washington, D.C., constitutes valid service.

The ruling clarified and tightened the procedural requirements for suing foreign governments in U.S. courts, reinforcing the textualist interpretation of the FSIA. It established a uniform, stringent standard for service of process, emphasizing adherence to statutory language to respect the sovereignty of foreign nations. This decision has significant implications for future transnational terrorism litigation and the procedural posture of civil claims against state sponsors of terrorism.