*1 TO THE PERMANENT MISSION OF INDIA UNITED v. CITY NATIONS et al. NEW YORK OF Argued No. 06-134. 2007 Decided June April *2 J., Roberts, Thomas, opinion Court, J., C. delivered the in which Scaua, Kennedy, Sotjter, Ginsbtjrg, and Auto, JJ., joined. Ste- and vens, J., J., Breyer, joined, dissenting opinion, post, filed a p. 202. Howley

John P. J. the cause With argued petitioners. Kandel, Robert A. Steven S. Rosen- him on the briefs were thal, David O. Bickart.

Sri Srinivasan argued the cause for the United States as amicus Solici- curiae urging were reversal. On the brief Attorney Keisler, Clement, tor General Assistant General Douglas Deputy Kneedler, Hallward- Solicitor General Swingle. Douglas Letter, N. Driemeier, Sharon respondent. argued the cause A. Cardozo Michael R. Corenthal, John were the brief Norman With him on Synder.* Brad M. Low-Beer, and opinion of Court. delivered

Justice Thomas (FSIA), Foreign Sovereign Act of Immunities jurisdiction seq., governs et federal courts’ U. S. C. sovereigns. Today, against foreign we must decide lawsuits sovereign provides immunity foreign to a whether the FSIA on from a of tax liens lawsuit declare employ- sovereign purpose housing its held ees. We hold that the FSIA does not immunize sovereign from such a suit.

I *3 of to the United Nations is The Permanent Mission India City building is York owned located in a 26-floor New by dip- for the Government Several floors are used of India. approximately residen- offices, floors contain lomatic but diplomatic employees tial the and their units for of mission employees the The are rank families. of whom below —all of Head Indian who of Mission or Ambassador—are citizens housing receive from the mission rent free. People’s

Similarly, Ministry of Foreign for Affairs building Republic Mongolia six-story of is housed in a New Mongolian by City York Government. is owned of India, Like of certain floors the Permanent Mission Ministry employ- Building for lower residences level include Ministry ees of the and their families. by foreign a real owned

Under New York law, government exempt if “used exclu- from taxation it is diplomatic diplomat sively” quarters a of officesor for the of amici curiae * A brief was filed for Interna urging affirmance Rothfeld, A Charles Lawyers tional Municipal by Association et al. Pincus, J. Andrew Kahan. Dan

“with the rank of or minister ambassador plenipotentiary” § the United Real Tax Law Prop: Nations. N. Y. Ann. (West 2000). But of lot only building or portion any “[i]f is used described, for the exclusively herein purposes then such shall be portion the remainder only exempt Ibid. shall be to taxation subject ....” For several York New years, (City) has levied city taxes for the their against portions of petitioners used to level buildings Petitioners, house lower employees. however, refused to New the taxes. pay By operation York law, the unpaid taxes converted into tax eventually liens two held by City against As properties. owed mil- February 1, 2003, the Indian Mission about $16.4 lion in interest, and unpaid taxes and Mongolian owed about Ministry million. $2.1 On filed April state court City complaints to establish the seeking declaratory judgments the tax liens.1 Petitioners removed their cases to federal court, § 1441(d), which pursuant U. C. provides S. removal or Once foreign state its instrumentality. there, were they immune from argued suits under the rule general governments. 1604. District Court disagreed, rely- The on the ing FSIA’s “immovable property” exception, City competent court of jurisdiction that even if de concedes *4 clares valid, immune from proceed liens are foreclosure ings. Respondent (noting See that there is Brief for 40 no FSIA immu actions). however, nity City claims, exception The for enforcement that necessary for three First, declarations are reasons. once a of valid, foreign sovereigns court property has declared tax liens tradition ally Second, sovereign foreign pay concede if fails to in the pay. foreign country’s aid may face of a valid reduced judgment, court that be outstanding Oper by debt. See Foreign United 110% of the States 2006, ations, Appropriations Act, Financing, Programs Export and Related 543(a), 543(a), 2214; 2005, § Act Appropriations § 119 Stat. Consolidated subsequent Third, against enforceable be 118 Stat. 3011. liens would (1944). § purchasers. 540 Property Restatement of 5 197 not from state shall be immune foreign juris- provides in in in case which diction immovable any “rights 1605(a)(4). § in the in situated United States are issue.” the District decision under the collat- Reviewing Court’s doctrine, eral order of the of Ap- unanimous Court panel (2006). for the 446 365 Second Circuit affirmed. F. 3d peals The Court held text and of the that the Appeals purpose FSIA’s immovable confirmed property exception peti- tioners’ tax involved personal property obligations, “rights in It immovable therefore held that the District property.” Court had suits. We jurisdiction City’s consider 549 affirm. certiorari, (2007), U. S. 1177 now granted

II FSIA the sole “[T]he basis provides obtaining jurisdic- Re- tion over a in state federal court.” Argentine foreign public Amerada Hess v. S. 428, Shipping Corp., U. (1989). FSIA, Under the state foreign presumptively § immune from suit 1604; unless a specific applies. exception Saudi Nelson, Arabia (1993). 507 U. At issue S. here is the in where immov- scope exception able situated in the are in United States issue.” 1605(a)(4). Petitioners contend that the language “rights in immovable limits the reach property” or actions possession. contesting City ownership additional in argues exception encompasses rights immovable liens. Each claims tax property, including party international time of the FSIA’s practice adoption sup- its ports view. with the agree City. We

A We the statute. Limti- begin, as with the text always, v. Camacho, aco The FSIA U. S. pro- vides: “A from state immune jurisdic- shall be tion courts ... case United States any which . . . in the situated rights

198 1605(a)(4). § United States are in 28 issue.” U. Con- S. C. 1605(a)(4) § does trary petitioners’ position, expressly limit itself to cases in is which at right issue specific title, or does it ownership, Neither possession. specifically in exclude cases a lien which the is at issue. validity Rather, on focuses more in” broadly “rights must we determine whether ac- property. an Accordingly, tion a declaration of the aof tax lien seeking places in issue.” property

At the time of a was “lien” adoption as or “[a] defined or security incumbrance charge upon prop- (4th 1951). erty.” Black’s Law 1072 ed. “In- Dictionary cumbrance,” in turn, was defined as to, or inter- right “[a]ny est which in, land subsist in another to the may diminution Id., of its id., 908; (8th . . . .” value see also at ed. 2004) “lien” as a (defining or interest a “legal credi- right tor has in another’s New York law “tax property”). defines lien” in with accordance these definitions. See Y. general N. 102(21) (West 2007) (“ Real Tax Law Ann. Prop. Tax Supp. lien’ an . means . . is tax which unpaid an encumbrance ”). real . . . property Court, This the Bank- interpreting Code, has also ruptcy recognized that a lienholder a has property interest, albeit interest. “nonpossessory” Bank, United States v. Industrial Security U. S. 70, (1982). effects of lien practical bear these out definitions of

liens as interests A lien on real property. runs with the land is enforceable against subsequent purchas (1944). ers. See §540 5 Restatement such, As Property “a lien an has immediate adverse upon effect amount sale, [could be] on a . . . receive[d] constituting] direct with interference . .” . . Republic of York, New Argentina 252, 262, 250 25 N. Y. 2d N. E. 2d A tax lien thus inhibits one of the quintessential rights It ownership right convey. —the *6 a to of a lien therefore suit establish the plain in immovable implicates property.”

B of the two well- by text is reading Our supported the of and related the FSIA: adoption of recognized purposes of restrictive view of codification sovereign immunity enactment. law the time of the FSIA’s international fol the United States century, Until the middle of the last of sovereign lowed “the classical or theory absolute virtually his cannot, without under which “a sovereign immunity,” sov consent, courts of another be made a respondent Adviser, Tate, Acting Letter from Jack B. Legal ereign.” Phillip U. to General State, Attorney S. of U. S. Dept, Acting 1952) (Tate Letter), in 26 19, B. reprinted Perlman (May Dunhill of and in (1952), State Bull. 984 Dept, Alfred of London, Cuba, 682, 712 Inc. v. Republic of 711, 425 U. S. Court). (1976) 2 to of The Tate Let (Appendix opinion to the major ter announced the decision join States’ United theory” of other “restrictive ity countries adopting immunity of which “the under sovereign immunity, is with to or public sovereign recognized regard sovereign a with to state, private acts but not (jure imperii) respect of FSIA, Id., (jure gestionis).” acts at 711. In enacting limita the restrictive theory’s Congress codify intended Argentina tion acts. Republic of sovereign immunity Weltover, Inc., Asociacion 612 607, (1992); v. 504 S. U. States, de F. 2d Reclamantes United Mexican (CADC J.). 1984) (Scalia, an inher a is not ownership As matter, threshold property v. Mc Exchange function. See Schooner ently sovereign (“A Faddon, (1812) acquiring prince, by Cranch be con private country, may possibly juris sidered as to the territorial subjecting down diction; laying he as so far considered may be individual”). prince, character assuming private addition, In the FSIA was also meant “to codify real pre-existing property exception immunity sovereign supra, Reclamantes, international recognized by practice.” J.). at 1521 (Scalia, it Therefore, useful to note that international at the time practice enactment also view that supports City’s these sovereigns are immune. recent The most restatement foreign relations law at time of the FSIA’s enactment states that a foreign does not sovereign’s extend to “an action to ob- tain possession or establish interest in immov- able property located territory state exercising *7 (Second) jurisdiction.” Restatement of Foreign Relations of Law the 68(b), United p. States As stated above, an because action of the seeking the declaration valid- of a tax ity lien on an property is suit to establish interest in such such an would property, action be allowed under this rule.

Petitioners to respond this conclusion the by citing second d sentence of Comment which §68, to that the states rule “does not preclude with claim immunity arising to a respect out of a or foreign state’s of possession immovable ownership but not the such or to contesting ownership right Id., possession.” at 207. to According petitioners, that sentence the limits to cases contesting ownership or possession. context, When read in the however, comment the supports Petitioners the first of City. sentence ignore comment, the which that immunity does not reemphasizes extend involving to cases the possession or “interest in” Ibid. And the illustrations property. following that comment make clear it refers incidental only claims to property ownership, involving such as an actions “injury in a for suffered fall” on would immunity property, Id., at By 208. for an eminent-domain apply. contrast, pro- ceeding, could not claim foreign sovereign immunity. Ibid. Like the law- City’s eminent-domain proceeding, suits directly implicate property. here rights international addition,

In both on parties various rely on the Vienna primarily Diplomatic Convention agreements, 18, 1961, 23 3227, T. I. A. S. No. Relations, Apr. U. S. T. Petitioners to identify pre-FSIA practice. international withholding to the analogous Vienna Convention’s point for “a private real action immunity relating State, un receiving situated in the territory of holds it behalf sending less on diplomatic agent] [the Id., Art. State for the mission.” purposes 31(l)(a). indicates language Petitioners contend that this are entitled they First, peti two reasons. do tioners not include actions argue “‘real actionfs]’” “ or ownership from performance obligations ‘deriving of immovable Brief for Petitioners possession property.’” E. Law: A on Denza, Commentary (quoting Diplomatic (2d ed. Vienna Convention on Relations Diplomatic deleted). 1998); Second, assert emphasis petitioners “ behalf the sending here is held ‘on State ” Brief purposes Mission.’ for Petitioners 28. as shows, But it is far from City apparent term from “real action” —a term derived the civil law —is Chateau as limited as Lafayette See suggest. *8 Bank, Inc. Meadow Brook Nat. 301, Apartments, 416 2d v. F. (CA5 1969). 304, Moreover, n. 7 the for exception held “on behalf of the State” the sending concerns only case —not at here —where local law agent issue an requires in to hold his own of a name used purposes (402d Meeting, mission. 1957 Int’l Comm’n 94-95 Y. B. L. Case, 94 I. L. R. Registrar 22, 1957); see also Deputy May (D. 1980). 308, 313 Ct. Other constru The tribunals Hague immu 31 that it does not extend Article have also held ing id., Properties cf. Intpro 312; staff nity See housing. (U. K.) Ltd. v. Sauvel, ^[1983] 1 B.Q. 1019, 1032-1033.

202 sum,

In Vienna Convention does not unambiguously on either In support party jurisdictional any question.2 event, the Vienna us Convention deters from our nothing of the FSIA. Under of the interpretation the language immovable are not property, petitioners immune from the suits. City’s

Ill Because the text and the statutory acknowledged purposes of the FSIA make it clear a suit to establish lien a tax places “rights issue,” we affirm the judgment Court Appeals remand case for further consistent with proceedings opinion. this is so

It ordered. Breyer Stevens, Justice whom with Justice joins, dissenting. channels

Diplomatic provide normal method of resolv between local ing disputes entities and governmental Exchange McFaddon, Schooner See sovereigns. v. (1812). 116, 146 Cranch well-established Following interna tional American practice, courts our haye throughout history consistently endorsed the rule that general foreign sover Verlin eigns enjoy suit in our from See immunity courts. Nigeria, den B. V. v. Central Bank 461 U. S. Nevada Hall, (1983); 440 U. S. The fact concerns immunity rather comity product V., B. Verlinden than a want of see juridical power, S.,U. City offers arguments against several other based on Convention, Vienna ultimately go arguments but those the merits case, e., i. whether actually are responsible paying the taxes. only question jurisdiction, Because the us before is one because text and historical peti context of FSIA demonstrate that suits, City’s tioners are immune we from the these leave merits-related arguments the lower courts. *9 role it 486, does not detract from that per-

at the important in our affairs. forms ordering (FSIA) of 1976 Act Sovereign Immunities Foreign The statute con-

both codified and modified that basic rule. from in our immune suit firms that are sovereigns generally courts, excep- § but specific 28 U. C. identifies seven S. 1605(a). § tions courts through may accept jurisdiction, ref- any None those or indeed makes exceptions pertains, to erence, sovereign’s actions to a foreign establish brought it is action, I think tax Because this is such an liabilities. in FSIA. barred rule general codified suits It is an exception true that FSIA contains to in resolve over immovable disputes property,” § law that 1605(a)(4), unpaid and New York City provides real estate an create lien that constitutes interest taxes (Cum. such Y. 11-301 Supp. N. C. Admin. Code property, 2006). text It follows a literal application a basis for to this case. See provides applying exception ante, at 197-199. and vintage Given breadth it to me un- background rule, however, seems general highly abrogate the drafters the FSIA intended to likely interests whose over sovereign immunity suits delinquent function is to primary provide remedy against taxpayers. va- since “a suit to

Under Court’s establish logic, of a lien lidity implicates ‘rights property,’” ante, 199, whenever state or law recognizes municipal lien against a real foreign sovereign’s property, government may be haled into federal court to litigate sovereign lien. a broad Such to rule. threatens, say, as swallow the they liens Under York municipal City, law New example, things, are available other against real property, among re- control, landowners compel pay pest emergency N. Code sidewalk Y. Admin. pairs, See C. upkeep. see Liens 17-145,17-147,17-151(b) §§ also (2000); Mitzner, M. *10 (J. Encumbrances, and Estate Real Titles 311-314 1984). A Pedowitz ed. whole host of routine civil controver- sies, from sidewalk to slip-and-falls disputes, landlord-tenant be converted into law, could local and liens under then used —as the tax lien was in for- case —to a this pierce traditional In eign sovereign’s statutory immunity. order to reclaim immunity, foreign governments might argue in those as the Governments India and the just cases — People’s Mongolia tried to here —that Republic argue claims, even once slip-and-fall into they are transformed liens, do implicate “rights immovable prop- But the burden of erty.” such answering complaints such itself an making arguments that imposition should not have bear. sovereigns The force of the ami of the Solicitor arguments General as cus curiae buttresses supporting conviction my a narrow reading is more statutory exception faithful to than intent congressional that enables reading over taxes to dispute be classified as a over dispute in immovable It is true insofar property.” as the FSIA transferred the responsibility decisions making immunity from the State V., B. Judiciary, Verlinden Department S.,U. at 487-488, the views of the Executive are not enti tled to any deference on this special issue. we have But recognized well-reasoned opinions Executive Branch about matters within its have may expertise if Skidmore “power to control.” persuade, power lacking & Co., 134, 140 U. S. Swift And I am At bottom, this case is not about persuaded. title to validity or even city’s property, itsof automatic Rather, lien. it is prejudgment over a dispute tax If foreign sovereign’s Con- liability. had intended the statute to waive gress sovereign immunity in tax I think it would have said so. litigation, I dissent. respectfully

Accordingly,