October Term 2019 · Docket 17-1268
Can Congress apply new damages laws to past foreign state acts?
Victims seek retroactive punitive damages against Sudan for 1998 embassy bombings.
Verified source milestones
- — 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.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
McGill stated Sudan provided Al Qaeda safe haven and material support.
Ross argued Landgraf does not require specific magic words for retroactivity.
Curran noted the D.C. Circuit found evidence of intent lacking.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 18-40 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 18-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 26-38 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 26-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 48-48 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 48-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 54-10 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 54-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 28-32 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 28-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 48-8 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 48-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 14-32 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 14-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 14-30 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 14-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 36-54 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 36-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 34-40 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 34-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 24-52 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 24-52
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 10-20 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 10-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 22-48 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 22-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 50-8 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 50-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 24-32 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 24-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 16-16 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 16-16
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests whether Congress can apply new damages statutes to past foreign state acts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 48-8 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 48-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 24-52 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 24-52
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 22-48 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 22-48
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 24, 2020.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 10-20 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 10-20
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want retroactive punitive damages for the 1998 embassy bombings.
Sudan wants the new damages law to apply only to future acts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 48-8 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 48-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 24-52 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 24-52
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 22-48 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 22-48
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the new statute creates a distinct federal cause of action.
Sudan argues the new law cannot retroactively impose punitive damages.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 48-8 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 48-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 24-52 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 24-52
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 22-48 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 22-48
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked where the term solatium comes from in damages.
Justice Kagan asked how the federal claim differs from state law claims.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 18-40 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 18-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 26-38 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 26-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 48-48 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 48-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 54-10 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 54-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 28-32 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 28-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 14-32 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 14-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 14-30 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 14-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 36-54 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 36-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 34-40 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 34-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 50-8 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 50-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 24-32 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 24-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 16-16 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 16-16
Why it matters
This dispute determines whether victims can recover punitive damages for past foreign state acts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 48-8 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 48-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 24-52 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 24-52
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 22-48 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 22-48
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 Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 18-40 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 18-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 26-38 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 26-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 48-48 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 48-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 54-10 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 54-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 28-32 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 28-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 14-32 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 14-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 14-30 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 14-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 36-54 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 36-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 34-40 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 34-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 10-20 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 10-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 50-8 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 50-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 24-32 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 24-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 16-16 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 16-16
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 48-8 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 48-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 24-52 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 24-52
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 22-48 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 22-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 48-8 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 48-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 24-52 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 24-52
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 22-48 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 22-48
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.