Justia U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 2008, Indu Rawat, a nonresident alien, sold her 29.2% partnership interest in Innovation Ventures, LLC, a U.S. company, for $438 million. Of this amount, $6.5 million was attributable to a gain on the company's inventory. The key issue was whether this inventory gain constituted U.S.-source income subject to U.S. taxes.The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined that the $6.5 million inventory gain was U.S.-source income and thus taxable, notifying Rawat that she owed approximately $2.3 million in taxes. Rawat paid the amount but petitioned the Tax Court for a refund, arguing that the inventory gain was foreign-source income and therefore not subject to U.S. taxes. The Tax Court sided with the Commissioner, holding that under § 751(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, Rawat must be taxed as though she had sold the inventory directly, making the gain U.S.-source income.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that § 751(a) does not treat inventory gain as income from the sale of inventory but merely subjects it to ordinary income taxation if it is otherwise taxable. Therefore, the inventory gain Rawat realized from selling her partnership interest is foreign-source income, not subject to U.S. taxes. The court reversed the Tax Court's decision, holding that Rawat's inventory gain was not U.S.-source income and thus not taxable. View "Rawat v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

The case involves Dr. Saad Aljabri, a former Saudi Arabian government official, who alleges that a group led by the current Saudi Prime Minister and Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud, plotted to kill him after he relocated to Canada. The district court dismissed Aljabri's claims, finding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over most of the defendants, and that Aljabri had failed to state a claim against two others.The district court found that due to the burden on bin Salman to litigate in the United States and Saudi Arabia’s greater procedural and substantive interest, the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over bin Salman would not meet “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” The court also determined that the District of Columbia’s long-arm statute did not provide “specific” personal jurisdiction over other defendants because Aljabri failed to sufficiently align their alleged business activities in D.C. with the plot against his life. The court denied Aljabri's request for jurisdictional discovery, finding that any information revealed in the discovery would not change the court’s conclusion that exercising personal jurisdiction over the defendants would be unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal of all claims against Saudi Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud, albeit for a different reason: his immunity from suit. However, the court held that the district court did abuse its discretion in denying Aljabri’s motion for jurisdictional discovery outright. The court therefore reversed the district court’s order denying jurisdictional discovery, vacated the judgment of dismissal with respect to two defendants, and remanded for jurisdictional discovery. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against two other defendants for the reasons given by the district court. View "Aljabri v. Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud" on Justia Law

The case revolves around EIG, an American investment fund, which lost $221 million after investing in a project to exploit newly discovered oil reserves off the coast of Brazil. The project was led by Petróleo Brasileiro, S.A. (Petrobras), Brazil’s state-owned oil company. A criminal investigation later revealed that Petrobras executives were accepting bribes from contractors and sharing the proceeds among themselves and Brazilian politicians. When this corruption was exposed, the project's lenders withdrew, causing the project to collapse and EIG’s investment to become worthless.The District Court for the District of Columbia had previously denied Petrobras' motion to dismiss the case, arguing that it was immune from liability under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The court held that EIG had sufficiently alleged that Petrobras’ fraud had a "direct effect in the United States" and therefore fell within the direct-effect exception to the FSIA.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The court concluded that Petrobras had caused a direct effect in the United States because it had engaged with EIG in a sustained course of dealing over many months that conveyed its desire to obtain an investment from EIG. The court also found that the direct effect in the United States was not the result of happenstance or coincidence. It was wholly foreseeable, given that Petrobras had contemplated and tried to attract U.S. investment. The court therefore affirmed the district court’s denial of Petrobras’ assertion of foreign sovereign immunity at this stage and remanded for further proceedings. View "EIG Energy Fund XIV, L.P. v. Petroleo Brasileiro, S.A." on Justia Law

The case involves Bainbridge Fund Ltd. (Bainbridge), which sought to attach property owned by the Republic of Argentina (Argentina) in partial satisfaction of a judgment entered against Argentina in 2020. The property in question, the Chancery Annex, was a building owned by Argentina in Washington, D.C. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) stipulates that the property of a foreign sovereign cannot be attached unless the sovereign waives immunity and the property is used for commercial activity in the United States. The district court denied Bainbridge’s application after finding that the property in question is not used for commercial activity.Previously, in the Southern District of New York, Bainbridge obtained a judgment against Argentina for $95,424,899.38, arising out of Argentina’s default on a bond owned by Bainbridge. The bond contained a waiver of sovereign immunity by Argentina. Bainbridge sought to attach and execute upon the Chancery Annex to satisfy the judgment in part.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Bainbridge’s application. The court found that the Chancery Annex was not “used for commercial activity” at the time of filing. The court also rejected Bainbridge's argument that Argentina had waived the “commercial activity” requirement under Section 1610(a) of the FSIA. The court held that the bond did not evince an explicit promise or intent by Argentina not to raise FSIA defenses. View "Bainbridge Fund Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina" on Justia Law

The case involves the Government of Romania's appeal against three judgments that confirmed an international arbitral award. The dispute originated from Romania's adoption of tax incentives to encourage investment in certain economically "disfavored" regions of the country. The Micula brothers and associated entities built food production facilities in Romania relying on these incentives. However, Romania repealed most of the tax incentives in 2005 in preparation to join the EU, leading the Miculas to file for arbitration in 2005.The district court confirmed the award in 2019 and entered judgment for $356,439,727, net of payments made and with interest. Romania challenged the subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania BIT was void as of Romania’s 2007 accession because EU law prohibits intra-EU agreements to arbitrate EU law disputes between a member state and the citizens of another member state. The district court ruled EU law was inapplicable because the parties’ dispute predated Romania’s EU membership and the award did not “relate to the interpretation or application of EU law.”In 2022, Romania sought relief from the 2019 Confirmation, and ensuing sanctions, arguing that two decisions of the EU’s highest court in 2022 held that “the agreement to arbitrate in the [Sweden-Romania] BIT was void the moment that Romania entered the EU.” The district court denied the motion, concluding that the CJEU Decisions did not hold Romania’s accession retroactively voided its pre-EU consent to arbitrate.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Romania's Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. The court held that the district court's jurisdictional analysis was not premised on the "interpretation and application of EU law." Rather, the district court independently found the requisite "jurisdictional fact" under the arbitration exception of an agreement to arbitrate with the Miculas. The court also found that the 2022 CJEU decisions did not support the interpretation that Romania’s 2007 accession to the EU retroactively rendered the preexisting agreement to arbitrate with Swedish investors “void ab initio.” View "Micula v. Government of Romania" on Justia Law

In 2020, seven victims of a 2016 terrorist bombing in Afghanistan obtained multi-million-dollar default judgments against the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and the Haqqani Network. Following the Taliban’s 2021 takeover of Afghanistan, the victims, suing as John Doe plaintiffs, sought to attach assets held by the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (commonly known as the “World Bank”). The plaintiffs argued that these assets belonged to the Afghan government or the central bank of Afghanistan, and that the Taliban had become the de facto Afghan government and the Afghan central bank its “instrumentality.”The district court granted the World Bank’s and Fund’s motions to quash the plaintiffs' writs of execution. The court found the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) inapplicable in this case. It expressed doubt that the funds the plaintiffs sought to recover belonged to Afghanistan, and it could not recognize an ownership claim by the Taliban to Afghan assets since the United States had not recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. The plaintiffs failed to show that the assets at issue fell under the TRIA, and so they had not shown that an exception to the Fund and the World Bank’s immunity applied. On that basis, the district court found that it lacked jurisdiction in the case and granted the motions to quash.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the TRIA does not abrogate the World Bank’s and Fund’s jurisdictional immunity under the International Organizations Immunities Act and Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The court concluded that the TRIA applies only to foreign states and international organizations once jurisdiction has been established over them. Because the TRIA leaves the World Bank’s and Fund’s jurisdictional immunity intact, the district court could not entertain the plaintiffs' garnishment action. View "John Does 1-7 v. Taliban" on Justia Law

The case involves two Chinese-owned companies, Hikvision USA, Inc. and Dahua Technology USA Inc., that manufacture video cameras and video-surveillance equipment. They challenged an order by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that implemented the Secure Equipment Act (SEA), which prevented the marketing or sale in the U.S. of their products listed on the “Covered List,” a list of communications equipment considered a threat to U.S. national security.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the SEA ratified the composition of the Covered List and left no room for the petitioners to challenge the placement of their products on that list under a predecessor statute. However, the court agreed with the petitioners that the FCC’s definition of “critical infrastructure” was overly broad.The court concluded that the FCC's order prohibiting the authorization of petitioners' equipment for sale and marketing in the U.S. for use in the physical security surveillance of critical infrastructure was upheld. However, the portions of the FCC’s order defining “critical infrastructure” were vacated, and the case was remanded to the Commission to align its definition and justification for it with the statutory text of the National Defense Authorization Act. View "Hikvision USA, Inc. v. FCC" on Justia Law

The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals examined a case against Iran and Syria brought by Rotem and Yoav Golan, an Israeli couple injured in a terrorist attack. The plaintiffs and their relatives who suffered emotional trauma from the attack, accused Iran and Syria of supporting the terrorist group Hamas, which orchestrated the attack. The district court denied a default judgment to several plaintiffs, leading to this appeal.The appellate court ultimately held that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. The court explained that although Congress has permitted federal courts to hear personal-injury claims arising from "extrajudicial killings" committed by state sponsors of terrorism, the attack in this case did not kill anyone, thus, it cannot be classified as an "extrajudicial killing". The plaintiffs could not identify any other basis for jurisdiction against the foreign-government defendants.The court pointed out that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 generally exempts foreign sovereigns from the reach of U.S. courts. This case falls within a statutory exception to that immunity, which was created by Congress in 1996 to withdraw foreign sovereign immunity for lawsuits that seek damages for personal injury or death caused by a state sponsor of terrorism. However, the court concluded that the exception did not apply because the attacker did not kill anyone.The court vacated the judgment of the district court with respect to the plaintiffs before the court and remanded for dismissal of their claims. View "Borochov v. Islamic Republic of Iran" on Justia Law

In a case involving cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the plaintiffs, former cobalt miners injured in mining accidents and their representatives, have standing to pursue damages claims, but not injunctive relief, against five American technology companies under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA).Plaintiffs argued that the technology companies participated in a venture with their cobalt suppliers by purchasing the metal through the global supply chain, which allegedly involves forced labor. The court ruled that merely purchasing an unspecified amount of cobalt through the global supply chain does not amount to "participation in a venture" within the meaning of the TVPRA, and hence, the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for relief.The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' common law claims for unjust enrichment, negligent supervision, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, as they failed to demonstrate that the technology companies participated in a venture with anyone engaged in forced labor. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint. View "Doe v. Apple Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit considered an appeal by Khan Mohammed, who had been convicted of international drug trafficking and narcoterrorism and sentenced to two concurrent life sentences. The district court later vacated the narcoterrorism charge, and upon resentencing for the drug trafficking charge, applied a terrorism enhancement under Section 3A1.4 of the Sentencing Guidelines, again resulting in a life sentence.Mohammed appealed this new sentence, arguing that the district court committed legal and factual errors in applying the terrorism enhancement, and used the wrong burden of proof. The appellate court affirmed Mohammed’s sentence. The court found no plain error in the lower court's application of Section 3A1.4, rejecting Mohammed's argument that the language of the statute had been abrogated and that the enhancement should only apply to convictions of federal crimes of terrorism. The court also held that the district court did not err by applying a preponderance of the evidence standard to conduct that was the subject of Mohammed's vacated conviction, even if the case involved extraordinary circumstances. Lastly, the court upheld the district court's factual findings that supported the application of the terrorism enhancement, declining to disturb findings that had already been upheld on appeal. View "USA v. Mohammed" on Justia Law