No. 16-1094October Term 2018Decided Mar 26, 2019
Republic of Sudan v. Harrison
Mailing service papers to a foreign minister through that country’s U.S. embassy was not an acceptable way to serve Sudan in this case.
Case status
- Current stage
- Decided
- Latest event
- Decision released Mar 26, 2019
- What it's about
Victims of the USS Cole bombing sued Sudan under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and obtained a default judgment after court papers were mailed to Sudan’s foreign minister through Sudan’s embassy in Washington, D.C. The case is about whether that mailing method was a valid way to serve a foreign country under the FSIA.
Question presented
Whether the Second Circuit erred by holding - in direct conflict with the D.C., Fifth, and Seventh Circuits and in the face of an amicus brief from the United States - that plaintiffs suing a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act may serve the foreign state under 28 U.S.C § 1608(a)(3) by mail addressed and dispatched to the head of the foreign state's ministry of foreign affairs "via" or in "care of” the foreign state's diplomatic mission in the United States, despite U.S. obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to preserve mission inviolability.
- Case path
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit / Decision released Mar 26, 2019
- Area
Decided Supreme Court case
Briefing
What it's about
The Supreme Court said plaintiffs could not properly serve Sudan by mailing court papers to Sudan’s foreign minister through Sudan’s embassy in Washington. The case centered on how a foreign country must be formally notified when it is sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
Vote
The Court issued a merits decision on March 26, 2019, but the prompt does not provide the vote count or opinion lineup.
Impact
The decision affects victims, families, and others suing foreign governments in U.S. courts. For example, a plaintiff with a terrorism-related claim must use a service method that fits the FSIA’s rules, not one routed through an embassy.
What's next
The Supreme Court has finished with this case. The practical next step is for the lower courts and the parties to proceed using the service rules the Supreme Court clarified.
What was the core dispute in Republic of Sudan v. Harrison?
The fight was over whether Sudan was properly served with the lawsuit. The papers were mailed to Sudan’s foreign minister through Sudan’s embassy in Washington.
Who is most affected by this decision in the real world?
People suing foreign governments in U.S. courts are most affected. They now know embassy-based mail service may not satisfy the FSIA’s formal notice rules.
What happens next procedurally after the Supreme Court's decision?
The Supreme Court’s work is over. The case goes forward in lower court under the service standard the justices announced.
Decision
What the Court decided
Mailing service papers to a foreign minister through that country’s U.S. embassy was not an acceptable way to serve Sudan in this case.
Impact
The decision affects victims, families, and others suing foreign governments in U.S. courts. For example, a plaintiff with a terrorism-related claim must use a service method that fits the FSIA’s rules, not one routed through an embassy.
Not official Court text.
Opinion documents
Related cases
Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary materials plus reporting.
- Note
- Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
- Checked
- Jul 2, 2026
- Method
- Methodology
Primary materials8
Supreme Court docket 16-1094
docket | Jul 3, 2026
Primary case document
Supreme Court document | Jul 3, 2026
CourtListener docket record
docket | Jul 3, 2026
Questions Presented
brief | May 26, 2026
opinion
opinion | Mar 26, 2019
SupremeCourt.gov
official | Jul 2, 2026
SupremeCourt.gov
official | Jul 2, 2026
SupremeCourt.gov
official | Jul 2, 2026