Justia International Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves insurance policies issued by certain surplus lines insurers at Lloyd’s, London, which contain identical arbitration clauses. The insured parties, 3131 Veterans Blvd LLC and Mpire Properties LLC, attempted to sue the insurers in Louisiana state court. The insurers then sued in New York federal court to enforce the arbitration clauses under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The insured parties argued that the arbitration clauses were unenforceable under Louisiana law, which prohibits such clauses in insurance contracts, and that the McCarran-Ferguson Act (MFA) allows state insurance laws to reverse preempt federal legislation and non-self-executing treaty provisions.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of the insured parties, holding that Louisiana law prohibits arbitration clauses in insurance contracts and that the FAA and the New York Convention were reverse-preempted under the MFA, based on the Second Circuit’s previous decision in Stephens v. American International Insurance (Stephens I).The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that its reasoning in Stephens I had been undermined by the Supreme Court’s decision in Medellín v. Texas, which established a different test for determining whether a treaty provision is self-executing. Applying the Medellín test, the court found that Article II Section 3 of the New York Convention is self-executing. As a result, the court abrogated Stephens I to the extent that it held that Article II Section 3 is not self-executing, reversed the district court decisions, and remanded the matters for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, v. 3131 Veterans Blvd LLC" on Justia Law

A former president of Panama, while residing in the United States, was extradited to Panama under a bilateral treaty. Panama initially charged him with specific crimes, but after his extradition, he was prosecuted for additional money laundering crimes not included in the original extradition request. He claimed these prosecutions violated the treaty's rule of specialty, which restricts prosecution to the crimes listed in the extradition request unless the extradited individual has had the opportunity to return to the extraditing country.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed his lawsuit for lack of standing. The court concluded that he failed to show that his injury was traceable to the defendants' actions or that a favorable ruling would redress his injuries. The court also determined that he lacked standing under the treaty's rule of specialty provision because the United States had waived its right to object to the additional prosecutions, and his rights under the treaty were derivative of the United States' rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that the plaintiff failed to establish Article III standing because his injury was not fairly traceable to the defendants' actions, as the decision to prosecute him was made independently by Panamanian officials. Additionally, the court found that a favorable declaratory judgment would not redress his injury, as it would not bind the Panamanian officials to drop the prosecutions. The court also concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing under the rule of specialty because the United States had consented to the prosecutions, extinguishing his derivative rights under the treaty. View "Berrocal v. Attorney General of the United States" on Justia Law

The case involves four affiliated companies, collectively known as the Pangang Companies, which were indicted for economic espionage related to their alleged efforts to steal trade secrets from E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (DuPont) concerning the production of titanium dioxide. The Pangang Companies argued that they were immune from criminal prosecution in the United States under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) because they are owned and controlled by the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Pangang Companies' motion to dismiss the indictment, holding that the FSIA did not apply to criminal cases and that even if it did, the commercial activity and implied waiver exceptions to the FSIA would apply. The Pangang Companies appealed, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals initially held that the companies failed to make a prima facie showing that they were covered entities under the FSIA.Upon remand, the district court again denied the motion to dismiss, reiterating that the Pangang Companies did not qualify for immunity under the FSIA and also rejecting their claims to common-law immunity. The court found that the companies did not exercise functions comparable to those of an agency of the PRC and thus were not entitled to immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that under federal common law, the Pangang Companies did not make a prima facie showing that they exercised functions comparable to those of an agency of the PRC. Therefore, they were not eligible for foreign sovereign immunity from criminal prosecution. The court also noted that principles of deference to the political branches on matters touching on foreign relations reinforced this conclusion. View "USA V. PANGANG GROUP COMPANY, LTD." on Justia Law

Marmen Inc., Marmen Énergie Inc., and Marmen Energy Co. (collectively, “Marmen”) appealed the U.S. Court of International Trade’s (CIT) decision that sustained the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (Commerce) final determination of a 4.94% dumping margin for utility-scale wind towers from Canada. Commerce had initiated an antidumping (AD) investigation in July 2019, and in June 2020, issued its final AD determination. Marmen challenged Commerce’s decision on three grounds: the weight-averaging of steel plate costs, the rejection of a USD-to-CAD cost reconciliation, and the use of the average-to-transaction (A-to-T) methodology based on Cohen’s d test.The CIT affirmed Commerce’s weight-averaging of Marmen’s steel plate costs but remanded the case on the other two issues. Commerce again rejected the USD-to-CAD cost reconciliation on remand, arguing it would double count an exchange-rate adjustment. Commerce also maintained its use of Cohen’s d test, despite concerns raised by the Federal Circuit in Stupp Corp. v. United States. The CIT sustained Commerce’s determination on both issues, leading to Marmen’s appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Commerce’s rejection of the USD-to-CAD cost reconciliation was not supported by substantial evidence, as the proposed adjustment did not duplicate other adjustments and was reliable. The court also concluded that Commerce’s use of Cohen’s d test was unreasonable because the data did not meet the necessary assumptions of normal distribution, equal variability, and sufficient size. The court vacated Commerce’s calculated dumping margin and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "MARMEN INC. v. US " on Justia Law

Dongkuk S&C Co., Ltd., a Korean producer of utility scale wind towers, challenged the United States Department of Commerce's final determination that its wind towers were being sold in the United States at less than fair value, resulting in an antidumping duty order. Commerce's investigation covered sales from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019, and found that Dongkuk's sales were below normal value, leading to the imposition of antidumping duties.The Court of International Trade (CIT) initially remanded Commerce's decision to adjust Dongkuk's steel plate costs, questioning the analytical support for Commerce's determination. Commerce provided additional analysis on remand, demonstrating that the cost variations were due to the timing of steel plate purchases rather than the physical characteristics of the wind towers. The CIT subsequently sustained Commerce's remand redetermination and upheld the choice of surrogate financial data for calculating constructed value profit and selling expenses.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the CIT's decision. The court held that Commerce's determination to adjust Dongkuk's steel plate costs was supported by substantial evidence, as the cost variations were unrelated to the physical characteristics of the wind towers. Additionally, the court upheld Commerce's use of SeAH Steel Holdings Corporation's consolidated financial statement as a reasonable source of surrogate data for calculating constructed value profit and selling expenses, despite Dongkuk's preference for SeAH Steel Corporation's standalone financial data. The court found that Commerce's decision was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. View "DONGKUK S&C CO., LTD. v. US" on Justia Law

Target Corporation (Target) imported goods subject to an antidumping duty order and paid duties at a lower rate than specified in a final judgment. The United States Customs and Border Protection (Customs) later realized the error but did not correct it within the statutory 90-day window. The United States Court of International Trade (CIT) ordered Customs to reliquidate the entries at the correct rate, despite the statutory finality provisions.In the lower court, the CIT granted the government's motion to dismiss Target's challenge to the reliquidation, relying on its previous decision in Home Products International, Inc. v. United States. The CIT held that it had the authority to enforce its judgments and that the principle of finality in 19 U.S.C. § 1514 did not bar correcting Customs' errors in liquidating entries covered by a trade action.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the CIT's decision. The Federal Circuit held that the case was governed by its precedent in Cemex, S.A. v. United States, which established that Customs' liquidation decisions, even if erroneous, are final and conclusive under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a) unless specific statutory exceptions apply. The court rejected the CIT's interpretation that it could use its equitable powers to override the statutory finality provisions. The Federal Circuit emphasized that Congress has carefully crafted a statutory scheme for finality and that any remedy for the harshness of the statute should come from Congress, not the courts. View "TARGET CORPORATION v. US " on Justia Law

In 1996, Congress enacted the Helms-Burton Act to allow U.S. nationals to seek compensation for property confiscated by the Castro regime in Cuba. Odette Blanco de Fernandez and her siblings' heirs and estates alleged that Seaboard Marine trafficked in property confiscated from their family’s companies, Azucarera Mariel, S.A. and Maritima Mariel, S.A., by shipping goods to a container terminal on the west side of Mariel Bay. The district court granted summary judgment for Seaboard, concluding that Fernandez failed to present evidence that Seaboard trafficked in confiscated land.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the claims of Fernandez’s siblings' heirs and estates, ruling they could not bring a claim under the Act because the siblings died after the statutory bar date of March 12, 1996. However, the court allowed Fernandez’s claims to proceed. The district court later granted summary judgment for Seaboard, holding that Fernandez did not provide sufficient evidence that Seaboard trafficked in confiscated property.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the siblings' heirs and estates' claims, citing the statutory bar date. The court also affirmed the summary judgment regarding Maritima’s 1955 concession, agreeing that it did not grant exclusive rights to exploit the entirety of Mariel Bay. However, the court reversed the summary judgment concerning Azucarera’s confiscated land, finding that Fernandez presented sufficient evidence that Seaboard’s commercial activities benefited from the confiscated property. The court held that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Seaboard benefited from the confiscated land by using the terminal built on it. The case was affirmed in part and reversed in part, allowing Fernandez’s claim regarding Azucarera’s land to proceed. View "De Fernandez v. Seaboard Marine Ltd." on Justia Law

Gerardo Gonzalez-Valencia, a leader of the Mexican drug-trafficking organization Los Cuinis, coordinated shipments of tens of thousands of kilograms of cocaine into the United States over a decade. He used various methods to conceal the drugs and employed violence and threats of violence in his operations. In 2016, a grand jury in the District of Columbia indicted him for conspiracy to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. He was arrested in Uruguay, where he fought extradition for four years. Despite his arguments against extradition based on the potential for a life sentence in the U.S., he was eventually extradited without any assurances from the U.S. regarding his sentence.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia sentenced Gonzalez-Valencia to life imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge without a plea agreement. The court calculated his base offense level and applied several enhancements, resulting in a recommendation of life imprisonment under the Sentencing Guidelines. Gonzalez-Valencia appealed his sentence, raising procedural and substantive claims, including objections to his criminal history category and the application of sentencing enhancements.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Gonzalez-Valencia's objections to the sentencing enhancements did not constitute plain error and that his argument regarding the Ex Post Facto Clause was not supported by clear legal precedent. The court also rejected his claim that the district court was required to comply with Uruguay's condition against a life sentence, noting that the U.S. made no such assurances. The court affirmed the district court's sentence, concluding that there was no reversible error or grounds for remand under 28 U.S.C. § 2106. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Valencia" on Justia Law

Monika Kapoor, an Indian citizen, faces extradition from the United States to India to face criminal charges. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York determined that Kapoor was extraditable under the bilateral extradition treaty between the U.S. and India. The Secretary of State issued a surrender warrant, rejecting Kapoor’s claims that she would likely be tortured if returned to India, which would violate the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Kapoor filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the Secretary’s decision, but the district court denied her petition, citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(4) from the REAL ID Act of 2005, which divested the court of jurisdiction to hear her claim. Kapoor appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the district court, stating that the Convention is not a self-executing treaty and that courts can review claims under it only as authorized by Congress. The court referenced the Supreme Court’s test in I.N.S v. St. Cyr, noting that Section 1252(a)(4) clearly states that claims under the Convention can only be raised in petitions for review of immigration removal orders and specifically bars judicial review of such claims in habeas proceedings, except in limited circumstances not applicable here.The Second Circuit held that this interpretation does not violate the Suspension Clause in the extradition context due to the longstanding rule of non-inquiry, which precludes American habeas courts from considering the anticipated treatment of an extraditee in the receiving country. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s decision, denying Kapoor’s petition. View "Kapoor v. DeMarco" on Justia Law

Realtek Semiconductor Corporation appealed a decision by the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) regarding a motion for sanctions against DivX, LLC. DivX had filed a complaint alleging a violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 by Realtek and others, which was later withdrawn. Realtek then sought sanctions against DivX for alleged misconduct occurring months prior. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the motion on procedural grounds, and the ITC adopted this decision without comment.Realtek petitioned for the ITC to issue a show cause order sua sponte, which the ITC declined to do. Realtek argued that the ITC's failure to issue the order violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The ITC and DivX contended that the appeal should be dismissed due to lack of standing, jurisdiction, and because the decision was unreviewable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the ITC's decision not to issue a show cause order sua sponte was within its discretion and thus unreviewable under the APA. The court noted that such decisions are committed to agency discretion by law and are not subject to judicial review. Consequently, the court dismissed Realtek's appeal. View "REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION v. ITC " on Justia Law