id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
iiclr-23325	Van Detta, Jeffrey A.	Suing Sponsors of Terrorism in U.S. Courts: Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran and Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC: SCOTUS Trims to Statutory Boundaries the Recovery in U.S. Courts Against Sponsors of Terrorism and Human-Rights Violations Under FSIA and ATS	2019	66	.pdf	application/pdf	32143	1387	55	The Flotsam and Jetsam of the ATS After It Foundered in Jesner Scanning the judicial horizon of reported cases since Jesner reveals a number of ATS cases that could eventually be headed towards certiorari — and, if certiorari were granted, that would give the Supreme Court the opportunity to complete the work begun in Jesner – i.e., deciding either (1) whether the circumstances of domestic corporations make their amenability to suit as ATS defendants plausible despite Jesner’s exclusion of foreign corporations, or (2) to take the even bigger step, advocated by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch in Jesner, of putting the judicial pen through the heart of Sosa. This was the doctrine of absolute sovereign immunity, which began to erode in the mid-20th century with the enactment of domestic sovereign-immunity limited waiver laws such as the Federal Torts Claims Act.11 One of the principal causes of the erosion of sovereign immunity doctrine, particularly in the United States and Europe, was the “restrictive theory” of sovereign immunity.12 That theory views sovereign immunity as extended to “truly sovereign” and “public” acts by a government but not to “private” or “commercial” activities.13 Since the days of the Marshall Court, the federal courts had accepted the notion that U.S. courts had no jurisdiction over foreign sovereigns because of the sovereign immunity doctrine in international law.14 However, with changes in the view of sovereign immunity – and with the global havoc wreaked by some of the sovereigns in World War II – the U.S. State Department looked anew at sovereign immunity in a 1952 study by then-legal advisor, Jack Tate, who encouraged the State Department to embrace the restrictive theory and to make “suggestions” of sovereign immunity (or lack thereof) to American courts (i.e., filing briefs stating the State Department’s position on sovereign immunity in any given case) based on the 9.	cache/iiclr-23325.pdf	txt/iiclr-23325.txt