Saudi Arabia v. Nelson
Encyclopedia
Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered the term "based upon a commercial activity" within the meaning of the first clause of 1605(a)(2) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
of 1976.
for alleged abuse and torture
suffered while under arrest in Saudi Arabia.
A married couple of United States
citizenry filed a tort action against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, King Faisal Specialist Hospital
in Riyadh
owned by the Saudi government, and the hospital’s corporate agent in the US, Royspec Purchasing Services. The tort claim against these three entities, collectively referred to as the Saudi government, alleged that Mr. Nelson, a hospital engineer in Riyadh, was subjected to illicit incarceration, routine torture spanning a four day period, and failure to admonish him as to the potential risks incurred by whistle-blowing. Based on the Saudi government’s alleged wrongful actions, Mr. Nelson believed the US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) authorized the court jurisdiction to hear the case.
The Hospital Corporation of America, Ltd. (HCA), a career recruiting firm based in the US, placed ads in various media outlets for the position of monitoring systems engineer at the King Faisal Specialist Hospital in Riyadh. Mr. Nelson interviewed for the job in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and later entered into an employment contract with the hospital through HCA. Mr. Nelson’s family was informed Royspec Purchasing Services, based in the US, was the designated agent
through which to contact Mr. Nelson in an emergency.
Mr Nelson began his new job in December 1983, which entailed monitoring “facilities, equipment, utilities, and maintenance systems to insure the safety of patients, hospital staff, and others” (Saudi Arabia v. Nelson). Shortly after employment began he discovered numerous safety violations and defects throughout the hospital, of which he promptly informed his superiors and a Saudi government commission of the infractions. He was asked to ignore the problems by the hospital, but he persisted.
On September 27, 1984, Mr Nelson was detained and subsequently tortured until signing a coerced statement, of which was in Arabic, a language he did not understand. Two days later he was imprisoned at Al Penitentiary without being charged of a crime. Mr Nelson’s wife was informed of her husband’s whereabouts several days later but could not condition a release. On November 5, 1984, Mr. Nelson was released from prison through the plea of US senator and left the country shortly thereafter through the
permission of the Saudi Government. Mr. Nelson’s employment contract was shortly terminated thereafter.
The plaintiff, Mr. Nelson, asserted the defendant, Saudi Arabia, was not immune to prosecution under the FSIA, which enumerates exceptions of which any must exist in order to deny a sovereigns’ foreign immunity. The list of exceptions refer to a State’s conduct only. A State is denied sovereign foreign immunity if the State’s conduct is private not public, private not sovereign, commercial not non-commercial or trade-related not political (Slomanson, 100). Specifically, the commercial activity immunity exception was used by Mr. Nelson. The plaintiff asserted job recruitment, contract of employment, and employment itself constituted the commercial activity that led to and associates the wrongful injury claim with the Saudi Government’s commercial activity. Therefore, the plaintiff claims that the process of recruiting, hiring, and subsequent employment led to or indirectly are associated with his tortious injuries.
This case was first heard by a federal trial court that dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
because the FSIA did not define commercial activity as imprisonment and torture. The case traveled to an appellate court, which held recruiting, hiring, and employing all entailed commercial activities that led to the wrongful injury thus establishing jurisdiction to hear the case under FSIA. The appellate court overturned the district court’s dismissal, but the Supreme Court reached the final, conclusive ruling.
The court reasoned that the tortious acts of the defendant were not “based upon a commercial activity”, therefore not in violation of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. The defendant’s conduct, however heinous, could not be classified as being “based upon a commercial activity”. The tortious conduct rather is a gross abuse of state police power, which is an act only performed by sovereign states. Only States perform acts such as unlawful detention of private citizens, torture, conduct foreign engagements and diplomatic relations. Private citizens cannot participate in acts of State.
with one caveat. The justices’ disagree that the defendant’s tortious conduct was not “based upon a commercial activity”, but nonetheless concur with the majority judgment because the commercial acts did not occur in the US.
Additionally, unlike Justice White, he believes the defendant’s commercial activities did have the adequate contact within the United States to fulfill an immunity exception under the FSIA.
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 is a United States law, codified at Title 28, §§ 1330, 1332, 1391, 1441, and 1602-1611 of the United States Code, that establishes the limitations as to whether a foreign sovereign nation may be sued in U.S. courts—federal or state...
of 1976.
Background
A U.S. citizen Nelson filed suit against Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia , commonly known in British English as Saudi Arabia and in Arabic as as-Sa‘ūdiyyah , is the largest state in Western Asia by land area, constituting the bulk of the Arabian Peninsula, and the second-largest in the Arab World...
for alleged abuse and torture
Torture
Torture is the act of inflicting severe pain as a means of punishment, revenge, forcing information or a confession, or simply as an act of cruelty. Throughout history, torture has often been used as a method of political re-education, interrogation, punishment, and coercion...
suffered while under arrest in Saudi Arabia.
A married couple of United States
United States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
citizenry filed a tort action against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, King Faisal Specialist Hospital
King Faisal Specialist Hospital
The King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center is a hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which operates 850 beds with approximately 8,500 employees. In all there are 63 different nationalities making up the staff. The hospital is the national referral center for oncology, organ...
in Riyadh
Riyadh
Riyadh is the capital and largest city of Saudi Arabia. It is also the capital of Riyadh Province, and belongs to the historical regions of Najd and Al-Yamama. It is situated in the center of the Arabian Peninsula on a large plateau, and is home to 5,254,560 people, and the urban center of a...
owned by the Saudi government, and the hospital’s corporate agent in the US, Royspec Purchasing Services. The tort claim against these three entities, collectively referred to as the Saudi government, alleged that Mr. Nelson, a hospital engineer in Riyadh, was subjected to illicit incarceration, routine torture spanning a four day period, and failure to admonish him as to the potential risks incurred by whistle-blowing. Based on the Saudi government’s alleged wrongful actions, Mr. Nelson believed the US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) authorized the court jurisdiction to hear the case.
The Hospital Corporation of America, Ltd. (HCA), a career recruiting firm based in the US, placed ads in various media outlets for the position of monitoring systems engineer at the King Faisal Specialist Hospital in Riyadh. Mr. Nelson interviewed for the job in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and later entered into an employment contract with the hospital through HCA. Mr. Nelson’s family was informed Royspec Purchasing Services, based in the US, was the designated agent
Agency (law)
The law of agency is an area of commercial law dealing with a contractual or quasi-contractual, or non-contractual set of relationships when a person, called the agent, is authorized to act on behalf of another to create a legal relationship with a third party...
through which to contact Mr. Nelson in an emergency.
Mr Nelson began his new job in December 1983, which entailed monitoring “facilities, equipment, utilities, and maintenance systems to insure the safety of patients, hospital staff, and others” (Saudi Arabia v. Nelson). Shortly after employment began he discovered numerous safety violations and defects throughout the hospital, of which he promptly informed his superiors and a Saudi government commission of the infractions. He was asked to ignore the problems by the hospital, but he persisted.
On September 27, 1984, Mr Nelson was detained and subsequently tortured until signing a coerced statement, of which was in Arabic, a language he did not understand. Two days later he was imprisoned at Al Penitentiary without being charged of a crime. Mr Nelson’s wife was informed of her husband’s whereabouts several days later but could not condition a release. On November 5, 1984, Mr. Nelson was released from prison through the plea of US senator and left the country shortly thereafter through the
permission of the Saudi Government. Mr. Nelson’s employment contract was shortly terminated thereafter.
The plaintiff, Mr. Nelson, asserted the defendant, Saudi Arabia, was not immune to prosecution under the FSIA, which enumerates exceptions of which any must exist in order to deny a sovereigns’ foreign immunity. The list of exceptions refer to a State’s conduct only. A State is denied sovereign foreign immunity if the State’s conduct is private not public, private not sovereign, commercial not non-commercial or trade-related not political (Slomanson, 100). Specifically, the commercial activity immunity exception was used by Mr. Nelson. The plaintiff asserted job recruitment, contract of employment, and employment itself constituted the commercial activity that led to and associates the wrongful injury claim with the Saudi Government’s commercial activity. Therefore, the plaintiff claims that the process of recruiting, hiring, and subsequent employment led to or indirectly are associated with his tortious injuries.
This case was first heard by a federal trial court that dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
Subject-matter jurisdiction
Subject-matter jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter. For instance, bankruptcy court only has the authority to hear bankruptcy cases....
because the FSIA did not define commercial activity as imprisonment and torture. The case traveled to an appellate court, which held recruiting, hiring, and employing all entailed commercial activities that led to the wrongful injury thus establishing jurisdiction to hear the case under FSIA. The appellate court overturned the district court’s dismissal, but the Supreme Court reached the final, conclusive ruling.
Opinion of the Court
The Court’s majority opinion, delivered by Justice Souter, held that the wrongful injury claim brought by Mr. and Mrs. Nelson was not “based upon a commercial activity” according to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (Sec. 1605(a)(2). The Court of Appeals judgment was thereby reversed, thus restoring the trial courts dismissal based upon a “lack of subject-matter jurisdiction”.The court reasoned that the tortious acts of the defendant were not “based upon a commercial activity”, therefore not in violation of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. The defendant’s conduct, however heinous, could not be classified as being “based upon a commercial activity”. The tortious conduct rather is a gross abuse of state police power, which is an act only performed by sovereign states. Only States perform acts such as unlawful detention of private citizens, torture, conduct foreign engagements and diplomatic relations. Private citizens cannot participate in acts of State.
Concurrences
Justice White and Justice Blackmun concur with Justice Souter’s majority opinionwith one caveat. The justices’ disagree that the defendant’s tortious conduct was not “based upon a commercial activity”, but nonetheless concur with the majority judgment because the commercial acts did not occur in the US.
Dissents
Justice Stevens believes the wrongful acts perpetrated by the defendant do constitute commercial activity. Under FSIA, the Saudi Government’s operation of the hospital, employment practices, and disciplinary procedures were “based upon commercial activity” and therefore the plaintiff has proven the court does have jurisdiction.Additionally, unlike Justice White, he believes the defendant’s commercial activities did have the adequate contact within the United States to fulfill an immunity exception under the FSIA.