Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard a dispute in which Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co., an American oil drilling company, sued Venezuela for allegedly expropriating its drilling rigs without compensation, in violation of international law. Venezuela claimed sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The key question was what a plaintiff must show to invoke the FSIA’s expropriation exception, which strips immunity when property is taken in violation of international law. The Court ruled that to overcome immunity, a plaintiff must plausibly plead that the property was actually taken in violation of international law, not merely claim that international law was violated. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this standard.

The Supreme Court held that to overcome foreign sovereign immunity under the FSIA’s expropriation exception, a plaintiff must establish a substantial and non-frivolous claim that property was taken in violation of international law, not merely allege a violation. The judgment of the D.C. Circuit was vacated, and the case was remanded.

Whether, at the jurisdictional stage under the FSIA’s expropriation exception, a court must determine that a foreign state’s taking of property actually violated international law, or if it is sufficient for the plaintiff to make a non-frivolous claim of such a violation.

The decision clarified the pleading standard for the expropriation exception, reinforcing foreign sovereign immunity protections. It narrowed the ability of plaintiffs to sue foreign states in U.S. courts for alleged expropriations, emphasizing that jurisdiction requires a genuine legal violation of international law, not just an accusation. This has implications for international investment disputes and U.S. foreign relations.