Massachusetts
How Altmann v. Republic of Austria applies in Massachusetts: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) / Civil Procedure—Jurisdiction and Immunity.
Massachusetts recognizes the principles of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), allowing for limited exceptions to sovereign immunity. In line with federal precedent, Massachusetts courts are tasked with determining whether a foreign state engages in commercial activity that may waive its immunity.
Under Massachusetts law, claims against foreign states must meet the commercial activity exception as outlined in the FSIA, which permits jurisdiction over foreign nations engaging in business transactions or acts that have a direct effect within the U.S.
The court held that Sudan could be held liable for its actions related to the bombing of the U.S. embassies under the FSIA's terrorism exception.
The court ruled that Iran was subject to jurisdiction under the FSIA due to its involvement in commercial activities affecting U.S. citizens.
Peru was found not to be immune from suit stemming from its commercial activities in Massachusetts, adhering to the commercial activity exception of the FSIA.
Massachusetts's approach largely aligns with the federal standard under the FSIA. Both frameworks emphasize the necessity for foreign states to engage in commercial activity directly related to the United States to invoke jurisdiction, balancing sovereignty concerns with access to justice.
The principles set forth in Altmann may appear on the Massachusetts bar exam, especially in questions dealing with the FSIA and jurisdiction involving foreign sovereigns.