Washington, DC – Four Jewish groups have filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief with the United States Supreme Court asking the Justices to overturn the ruling of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that, the amici claim, could inhibit officials of the State of Israel from lecturing or meeting with others on American territory.
The case itself concerns a group of Somalis who are seeking restitution from a former Somali prime minister for alleged torture they say they suffered at the hands of soldiers under his command. The former leader invoked a law, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, to have the lawsuit against him rejected. The Fourth Circuit appeals court ruled that the suit may proceed.
The problem with that ruling, according to the brief’s filers – Agudath Israel of America, the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America and the Zionist Organization of America – is that it invites anti-Israel activists to embrace a tactic in the U.S. that they have widely employed in other countries: intimidating Israeli officials to shun travel, so not to render themselves vulnerable to lawsuits, no matter how frivolous.
That tactic, which has been labeled “lawfare,” consists of asserting that Israel, for its defense of its territory from terrorist groups, is guilty of war crimes – and that, therefore, its officials may be sued in American courts. Such lawsuits in effect use the courtroom as a front in the larger assault on Israel by her enemies.
Earlier this year, Israeli Vice Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon cancelled a visit to Britain to attend a charity event because of the threat of a lawsuit. In 2007, Israel’s public security minister declined an invitation to visit Britain after being advised he could be arrested. In 2005 a retired general dodged arrest by staying aboard his plane at London’s Heathrow airport after being tipped off that police were outside to arrest him.
The brief, written by renowned Washington attorneys Nathan Lewin and Alyza Lewin, contends that such lawsuits should be “dismissed at their inception” because of the immunity provided foreign governments themselves under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Not extending that immunity to government officials, the amici write, “will surely stifle speaking engagements, scholarly visits and public appearances in the United States by current and former government officials of the State of Israel.”
Permitting the Fourth Circuit decision to stand, the brief further notes, would force Israeli officials to “shade” decisions they make as public servants, a concern that lies at the heart of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
Agudath Israel of America, as a national Orthodox Jewish organization affiliated with a political party in Israel, frequently invites the party’s representatives who serve in the Knesset to speak at and participate in its functions in the United States.
(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
10 Responses
1. So any Nazi claims would have to be dismissed, as would claims brought in the US against terrorists. It is good that we have the opportunities to sue people in a friendly court (in case you haven’t heard, there are plenty of anti-semites in the world).
2. The penalty for bring a frivolous claim is serious and frivolous claims can be dismissed at the outset.
Akuperma there you go again. Always comming up with a warped way of looking at things and sticking up for the arabs and anti semites.
lets not forget that ahmad…. was afforded several visits to the US, with speaking tours at columbia and the UN without any barriers
always the double standard for Am Yirael–that’s what galus is!
With all of the leftists on the Court of Appeals, this could go all of the way to the Supreme Court.
yehudah y d (#2)and kollelman (#3)
Do you gentlemen have a principled position on whether American courts should available for such suits against foreign leaders? I don’t think you do. If the issue were Yidden suing Iranian leaders your tune would change instantly . . and if Akuperma took your side of the issue with those facts, you’d call him an anti-Semite.
The phrase a “nation of laws” means something – it’s not just jibberish. If you have a right to speak free of gov’t interference, then so does the Nazi, the Communist and the immoral – it is a matter of fundemental principle . . . . rather than swinging in the breeze and changing your position depending upon whether you “like” the result.
Baruch Hashem for the country we live in and for the legal foundations upon which it is built.
Flatbush Bubby:
Either name the “leftists” on the Court and present the information you have that supports your allegations…or you’re full of hot air.
I’ve come to think that you’d label as “left” anything that isn’t glued to the right wall. Why? I bet that you can’t even explain any philosophical position identified either with a left wing ideology or Liberalism, and that you haven’t a clue as to what distiguishes one from the other. Lighten up Bubby.
However, maybe we can agree on an issue that sharply divides Yidden – do you like p’cha? I love it.
Nope, I am not full of hot air. But, I think it is very easy to point out who is a left wing judge. Just read their decisions and look at their resume’ and you will be able to discern if they truly are willing to interpret the Constitution as rock solid or as a living and breathing document. Most importantly, do they perceive themselves as jurists who are to interpret the law through the intent of our Founding Fathers or what they want the law to be. You know, legislate from the bench. Roe v. Wade anyone?
I see your radio is working quite well, Flatbush Bubby, but you didn’t answer any of YonasonW’s questions.
Flatbush Bubby – We live in a common law state, modeled after the English system. In our system judicially developed law is the norm – it is supposed to be that way; it is the legal system that was in place and which was continued by the founders. The “activist court” mantra is a bit of a myth – confusing substantive result with process.
L’havdil, it is similar in a sense to Gemora – rules of construction and interprtation to which one must adhere – but new interpretations and reinterpretations are part of te model. That’s how we get from Plessy v. Fergussen, which in the 1890s held segregated school systems to be constitutional, to Brown v. Board of Education, which in 1954 overturned Plessy, declaring “separate but equal” to be violative of constitutional equal protection.
But still Bubby – all you have given us are conclusions – with no meat. What decisions and ipinions strike you as left wing? and tell me . . . if I uphold a Communist’s right to speak am I left wing? If I do so for a Ku Klux Klan member, am I right wing?
Another thing Bubby – Roe v. Wade is a perfect example of the distinction between liking a result and appreciating the legal rights involved. I am as against abortion as any of us, but at the same time I appreciate the constitutional issues raised and discussed in the case.
Roe was a case that went to the power of the government to dictate personal moral judgments. As a lawyer I don’t think that the breadth of constituional protections in this area necessarily have to coincide with my moral views. I hate Nazis and think their positions are dispicably evil – but I would defend their Constitutional right to express their evil views.
More to the point here, as a Yid I am fiercely in favor an expansive definition of rights because I think it protects us. I want shchieta and bris to be off limits to government interference . . . even if the goyish majority opinion, chas v’ shalom, decides them to be “immoral”
So…don’t confuse substantive result with Constitutional restrictions on the government’s right to interfere in or dictate a result. They ain’t the same thing.