Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Republic of Sudan v. Harrison

Supreme Court of the United States · 2019 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureForeign Sovereign Immunities ActService of ProcessPersonal JurisdictionFSIA28 U.S.C. §1608(a)(3)service of processforeign sovereign

Facts

Respondents, victims of the USS Cole bombing and their family members, sued the Republic of Sudan under the FSIA. Because service under §1608(a)(1) and (2) was unavailable, the clerk mailed the summons, complaint, notice of suit, and translations to Sudan's Minister of Foreign Affairs at the Sudanese Embassy in Washington, D.C., and received a signed return receipt. Sudan did not appear, and the district court entered a default judgment. When respondents later sought turnover orders against Sudanese assets, Sudan argued that the judgment was void for lack of personal jurisdiction because §1608(a)(3) required mailing directly to the foreign minister's office in Sudan.

Issue

Does 28 U.S.C. §1608(a)(3) permit service on a foreign state when the clerk mails the service packet, addressed to the foreign minister, to the foreign state's embassy in the United States? Or does the statute require the packet to be sent directly to the foreign minister's office in the foreign state?

Rule

Section 1608(a)(3) is most naturally read to require that a service packet be addressed and dispatched directly to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs at the minister's office in the foreign state. Mailing the packet to the foreign state's embassy in the United States does not satisfy that provision.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After service under §1608(a)(1) and (2) proves unavailable, Maya Ellison sues the Republic of Arkena in federal court in Chicago. At her request, the clerk sends the summons, complaint, notice of suit, and translations by courier requiring a signed receipt to "Luka Varen, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Embassy of the Republic of Arkena, Washington, D.C.," and the embassy receptionist signs for the package.

Is service valid under §1608(a)(3)?

Explanation. Section 1608(a)(3) is most naturally read to require mail service addressed and dispatched directly to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs at the minister's office in the foreign state. Mailing the packet to the foreign state's embassy in the United States does not satisfy that requirement, even if the minister is named and a signed receipt is returned. The majority rejected a mere actual-notice or reasonable-calculation approach.