2009 Supreme Court term

MOHAMED ALI SAMANTAR v. BASHE ABDI YOUSUF, ET AL.

Dockets 08-1555Argued
AI-generated independent summary

This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.

In brief

Overview

Oral argument was held before the Supreme Court at 10:02 a.m.

According to Shay Dvoretzky (Petitioner), according to Shay Dvoretzky (Petitioner), petitioner argued that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies to suits against foreign officials for acts taken on the state's behalf, treating them as suits against the state directly.

According to Executive Branch, the Executive Branch asserted that it decides whether a person can be sued and that without its notice, the person cannot be sued.

According to Ms. Millett, ms. Millett noted the absence of a Somali Ministry of Defense or government, highlighting the unusual situation.

The State Department failed to appear for two years.

Background and question before the Court

According to Shay Dvoretzky (Petitioner), according to Shay Dvoretzky (Petitioner), the case centered on whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act bars suits against foreign officials for actions taken on behalf of their foreign state.

Justice Kennedy asked the petitioner, “What authority do you have for that?”

Justice Ginsburg asked whether any Alien Tort Statute or torture statute would survive because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides no exception.

Justice Alito asked if the petitioner agreed with the Solicitor General’s position about preserving pre‑existing immunities.

Justice Stevens asked whether the petitioner contended that his client was covered by 1603(b)(1).

Justice Scalia asked whether there was any uncertainty about individuals.

Justice Scalia asked whether a “no” answer would essentially decide the case.

What each side argues

Petitioner

According to Shay Dvoretzky (Petitioner), according to Shay Dvoretzky (Petitioner), petitioner argued that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies to suits against foreign officials for acts taken on the state's behalf.

According to Petitioner (Shay Dvoretzky), according to Petitioner (Shay Dvoretzky), petitioner’s brief contends that Congress in 1976 codified the common‑law immunity but removed a procedural power that had historically existed.

Respondent

According to Executive Branch, the Executive Branch asserted that it decides whether a person can be sued and that without its notice, the person cannot be sued.

According to Ms. Millett, ms. Millett noted that there is no Ministry of Defense or government in Somalia, making the situation unusual.

What happened at oral argument

Justice Kennedy asked, “What authority do you have for that?”

Justice Ginsburg asked whether any Alien Tort Statute or torture statute would survive because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides no exception.

Justice Alito asked if the petitioner agreed with the Solicitor General’s position about preserving pre‑existing immunities.

Justice Stevens asked whether the petitioner contended that his client was covered by 1603(b)(1).

Justice Scalia asked whether there was any uncertainty about individuals.

Justice Scalia asked whether a “no” answer would essentially decide the case.

What the Court decided

Pending This section will be added when the relevant Court material is available.

Why it matters

Source-limited The available primary sources do not support a complete explanation yet.

Terms to know

No glossary terms are available for this guide.

Primary sources

Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.

  • 8805b9014539cb62be3f-r1-22ceb54e65f01626.pdforal argument transcript

Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.