About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Spring 2026)

handle is hein.ali/resfrlus0057 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2026 Citations FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES 2D CHAPTER 4. IMMUNITIES FROM JURISDICTION TOPIC 2. IMMUNITIES OF FOREIGN STATE § 66. Applicability of Immunity of Foreign State C.A.5, 2025. Cit. in ftn., subsec. (f) quot. in ftn., cit. in case cit. in sup. and in ftn. Surviving spouses of participants in rallies in Nigeria sued former Nigerian governor, alleging that defendant was liable under the Torture Victim Protection Act for the extrajudicial killing of participants, who died when defendant ordered military forces to shoot indiscriminately at attendees of the rallies. The district court granted defendant's motion to dismiss based on foreign-official immunity. This court affirmed, holding that the Act did not abrogate defendant's common-law foreign-official immunity. The court explained that conduct-based immunity under Restatement Second of Foreign Relations Law § 66(f) was available to any public minister of a foreign state with respect to acts performed in an official capacity if the effect of exercising jurisdiction would be to enforce a rule of law against the state, and the undisputed record indicated that defendant was a Nigerian official acting in his official capacity by commanding Nigerian soldiers. Does 1-5 v. Obiano, 138 F.4th 955, 958, 959. Tenn.2025. Subsec. (g) cit. and quot. in sup., com. (a) quot. in sup. Four affiliated Chinese corporate entities were indicted on federal charges of economic espionage in connection with their alleged efforts to steal trade secrets related to the production of titanium dioxide from a U.S. company. The district court denied defendants' motion to dismiss, in which they maintained that they enjoyed foreign sovereign immunity from criminal prosecution in the United States because they were ultimately owned and controlled by the Chinese government. Affirming, this court held that defendants did not make a prima facie showing that they exercised functions comparable those of a Chinese government agency under Restatement Second of Foreign Relations Law § 66. The court pointed out that immunity under § 66 turned on the functions that the corporation exercised, not on the corporation's ownership or control. United States v. Pangang Group Company, Ltd., 135 F.4th 1142, 1156-1158, 1160. COPYRIGHT C2026 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.