[ad_1]
The Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday in two cases involving foreign state service proceedings under the Sovereign Aliens Immunity Act (FSIA) and the cap on attorney fees for lawyers representing clients in social security benefit cases.
In the judgment Republic of the Sudan c. Harrison, the applicant is appealing a decision of the US Second Circuit Court of Appeal, according to which a plaintiff suing a foreign state may put himself at the service of the head of the Department of Foreign Affairs of the United States. American embassy of this state.
Yemen brought an action in Washington District Court for a bombing attack on the USS Cole in Yemen's port in 2000, alleging Sudan's material support to Al Qaeda. The summons and complaint were sent to the Sudanese Embassy in Washington, DC, addressed to the Sudanese Minister of Foreign Affairs with an acknowledgment of receipt. Not receiving a response from the Sudanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, a district court issued a default judgment against Sudan.
On appeal, the Supreme Court heard argument on the interpretation of the "sent and mailed" language of the FSIA to 28 USC § 1608 (a) (3) as there was no evidence that the Minister of Foreign Affairs Sudan would have never received the original summons and complaint. The petitioner asked whether the text of the law included an embassy from the United States where the Sudanese Minister of Foreign Affairs was visiting on occasion, which could give rise to concerns about the due process, such as said Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
In that case, a decision would determine the meaning of the law and determine whether it is contrary to the United States' obligations under the Vienna Convention to preserve the inviolability of the mission. Kannon Shanmugan, arguing in favor of the defendants, argues that an embassy is an extension of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and believes that the Vienna Convention does not prohibit service by correspondence in an embassy.
In the Culberston lectures c. Berryhill, the Supreme Court has heard arguments on the scope of the current cap imposed by the federal government on 25% of legal fees in social security cases.
This case will resolve the current split between federal appeal courts over whether the Social Security Act imposes a cumulative ceiling on attorney fees of 25% of the allowances owed for representation in court and the Social Security Administration, or if the 25 The maximum percentage applies separately to the representation in court.
Amy Weil, the court-appointed amicus curiae, defended the decision of the US Circuit Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit regarding the overall cap of 25%, alleging that lawyers would be encouraged to sue their clients to obtain fees contrary to the purpose of the Social Security Act, which is to protect a source of income.
Daniel Ortiz, arguing on behalf of Culbertson, argued that the cancellation of the Eleventh Circuit's decision could limit the lawyer's fees to a less restrictive level and help people obtain legal representation more easily in social security affairs and to receive more social security benefits.
