October Term 2009 · Docket 08-1555

Does the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act shield foreign officials from personal liability?

Plaintiffs sue a former Somali official for human rights abuses. The defendant claims state immunity. The lower court rejected that claim.

Official caption
Samantar v. Yousuf
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Shay Dvoretzky argued for Samantar. He stated that the Act applies to officials acting on the state's behalf. He claimed such suits are equivalent to suing the state directly.

    Paula Millett argued for Yousuf. She contended the Act was not intended to apply to preexisting common law. She argued the statute does not create a blanket exception for officials.

    questions_and_answers

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the scope of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The Act generally blocks suits against foreign states. It does not explicitly mention individual officials. The core dispute is whether suing an official counts as suing the state.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 3, 2010.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Samantar wants the court to dismiss the lawsuit. He argues the Act grants him immunity as a state agent.

Yousuf wants the lawsuit to proceed. He argues the Act does not protect individual officials from personal liability.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Samantar argues that suits against officials acting for the state are equivalent to suits against the state itself.

Yousuf argues that the Act was not intended to replace the preexisting common law of official immunity.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Ginsburg asked if this view would have blocked earlier human rights cases.

Justice Kennedy asked what legal authority supports the proposition that the Act covers officials.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the boundary between state and individual liability. It determines whether victims can sue foreign officials directly. It shapes the reach of international human rights law in U.S. courts.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON