Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Republic of Austria v. Altmann is a cornerstone case at the intersection of civil procedure, foreign sovereign immunity, and human rights restitution.
Does the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act govern a foreign state's claim to immunity in a suit filed after 1976 when the challenged sovereign conduct occurred before FSIA's enactment, including conduct that predates the 1952 adoption of the restrictive theory of immunity?
The FSIA provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in U.S. courts and prescribes the standards for foreign sovereign immunity. Under FSIA, foreign states are presumptively immune unless a statutory exception applies, including the expropriation exception for cases in which property rights taken in violation of international law are at issue and a statutory nexus to the United States exists, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3). The Act applies to all civil actions filed after its 1976 enactment, even if the underlying conduct occurred before 1976 (and before 1952), because it establishes jurisdictional rules and an immunity framework that Congress intended courts to apply henceforth.
Yes. The FSIA governs the determination of foreign sovereign immunity in all suits filed after 1976, regardless of when the underlying conduct occurred, including pre-1952 conduct. Accordingly, Austria's entitlement to immunity must be evaluated under FSIA and its exceptions. The Ninth Circuit's judgment was affirmed.
Altmann is the leading case on FSIA's temporal reach. It teaches that the Act's immunity framework applies to all suits filed after 1976, even when the alleged sovereign wrongdoing predates both FSIA and the 1952 Tate Letter. For law students, the case is a rich study in statutory interpretation, the Landgraf retroactivity framework, and the distinction between jurisdictional rules and substantive rights. Practically, Altmann opened the courthouse doors to certain Holocaust-era restitution claims against foreign states and their instrumentalities in U.S. courts, subject to FSIA's exceptions (especially the expropriation exception) and tempered by other doctrines that can channel or limit such litigation. It is frequently paired with Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess as foundational FSIA doctrine.