Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY ET AL. v. SIMON ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 23–867. Argued December 3, 2024—Decided February 21, 2025 The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) provides foreign states with presumptive immunity from suit in the United States. 28 U. S. C. §1604. To sue a foreign sovereign in United States courts, plaintiffs must satisfy one of the exceptions to immunity set forth in the FSIA. The FSIA’s expropriation exception permits claims when “rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue” and either the property itself or any property “exchanged for” the ex- propriated property has a commercial nexus to the United States. 28 U. S. C. §1605(a)(3). Respondents, Jewish survivors of the Hungarian Holocaust and their heirs, sued Hungary and its national railway (MÁV) in federal court, seeking damages for property allegedly seized during World War II. Respondents’ complaint alleged that Hungary and MÁV liquidated the expropriated property, commingled the proceeds with other gov- ernment funds, and later used funds from those commingled accounts in connection with commercial activities in the United States. The District Court determined that this “commingling theory” satisfied §1605(a)(3)’s commercial nexus requirement. The D. C. Circuit af- firmed, reasoning that requiring plaintiffs to trace the particular funds from the sale of their specific expropriated property to the United States would make the exception a “nullity” in cases involving liqui- dated property. Held: Alleging commingling of funds alone cannot satisfy the commercial nexus requirement of the FSIA’s expropriation exception. Pp. 9–22. (a) The expropriation exception requires plaintiffs to trace either the specific expropriated property itself or “any property exchanged for such property” to the United States (or to the possession of a foreign state instrumentality engaged in United States commercial activity). 2 REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY v. SIMON

Syllabus

The provision’s plain text treats tangible and fungible property alike: For both kinds of property, plaintiffs must plead some facts that enable the reasonable tracing of the property to the United States. Thus, when property is expropriated and exchanged for cash that is then commingled with other funds, plaintiffs must still plausibly allege that the specific proceeds from their property have the required commercial connection to the United States. Plaintiffs might satisfy this requirement in various scenarios: for ex- ample, by identifying a United States account holding proceeds from expropriated property (as in Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U. S. 398), or by showing that a foreign sovereign spent all funds from a commingled account in the United States shortly after the commin- gling occurred. But an allegation that a foreign sovereign liquidated property decades ago, commingled the proceeds with general funds, and later used some portion of those funds for commercial activities in the United States cannot establish a plausible nexus. This is espe- cially true when commingled funds have been used for various activi- ties worldwide or when the commingled funds are within a f