785 F.3d 545
11th Cir.2015Background
- Nelson Mezerhane, a Venezuelan businessman and media owner, sued Venezuela, SUDEBAN, and FOGADE in U.S. court alleging expropriation, human-rights violations, and other torts arising from actions by the Venezuelan government that he says left him de facto stateless.
- Mezerhane asserted jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), invoking the §1605(a)(3) exception for “rights in property taken in violation of international law.”
- District court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding the defendants immune under the FSIA and that the act of state doctrine barred adjudication; Mezerhane appealed.
- The panel accepted Mezerhane’s factual allegations as true for pleading-stage review but analyzed whether FSIA’s treaty-based/ human-rights claim could overcome sovereign immunity.
- The court applied the domestic-takings rule: takings of a state’s own nationals on its territory generally do not violate international law for FSIA purposes, so §1605(a)(3) did not apply.
- The court also held the act of state doctrine barred review; the Second Hickenlooper Amendment does not displace that doctrine where, as here, no international-law violation (as interpreted for FSIA purposes) is shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FSIA §1605(a)(3) exception applies | Mezerhane: confiscations violated treaty-based human-rights norms (American Convention, refugee/statelessness treaties) and thus are takings in violation of international law | Venezuela et al.: takings affected a state’s own national on its territory, so domestic-takings rule forecloses an international-law violation and FSIA immunity applies | Held: Exception does not apply; domestic-takings rule bars treating these acts as violations of international law for FSIA purposes |
| Whether developments in human-rights law abolished domestic-takings rule | Mezerhane: international human-rights law has evolved to cover such takings | Defendants: cited precedent and comity concerns; treaties cited do not change rule or lack applicability here | Held: No—precedent and Supreme Court guidance counsel against expanding the exception; treaties cited do not overcome rule |
| Whether plaintiff’s alleged de facto statelessness removes domestic-nation limitation | Mezerhane: loss of citizenship/statelessness places him outside domestic-takings rule | Defendants: claims concern only Venezuela and do not implicate multiple states; de Sanchez principle controls | Held: Statelessness allegation insufficient; injuries concern a single state and do not convert the taking into an international-law violation |
| Whether act of state doctrine permits judicial review despite FSIA issues (Second Hickenlooper Amendment) | Mezerhane: Amendment permits adjudication of takings in violation of international law | Defendants: act of state bars inquiry into sovereign acts within its territory unless an international-law violation is properly shown | Held: Act of state doctrine bars suit here; Second Hickenlooper Amendment does not apply because no violation of international law (as interpreted for FSIA) is shown |
Key Cases Cited
- de Sanchez v. Banco Central de Nicaragua, 770 F.2d 1385 (5th Cir.) (domestic-takings rule; international law protects aliens, not necessarily a state’s treatment of its own nationals)
- United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324 (1937) (courts do not adjudicate another country’s treatment of its own nationals regarding property)
- FOGADE v. ENB Revocable Trust, 263 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2001) (foreign confiscation of a nation’s own national typically not an international-law violation; Hickenlooper Amendment interpretation)
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) (caution against using U.S. courts to enforce broad international-law limits on foreign sovereigns’ treatment of their own citizens)
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013) (limits on extraterritorial application of international-law remedies and judicial interference with foreign policy)
- Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964) (act of state doctrine: U.S. courts will not question validity of foreign sovereign acts within its territory)