91 The decisions of the US Supreme Court have always carried weight beyond the continental United States. In an era of global commerce, cross-border litigation, and interconnected legal systems, the Court’s rulings on sovereign immunity, executive power, international arbitration, and immigration law have global significance. They are particularly important for lawyers operating across jurisdictions—whether advising multinational clients, enforcing arbitral awards, navigating trade regulations, or handling matters touching on state sovereignty. This article examines four Supreme Court decisions from the Court’s 2024 and 2025 Terms with significant implications for international legal practice. The first, Republic of Hungary v. Simon, 604 US 115 (2025), concerns the scope of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s expropriation exception and the limits of suing a foreign sovereign for property seized decades ago—a question with deep resonance for Holocaust restitution and, more broadly, for any claim arising from historical state confiscation. The second, CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp., 605 US 223 (2025), resolves a circuit split over whether the FSIA requires proof of “minimum contacts” for personal jurisdiction over a foreign state—a decision of immediate practical consequence for parties seeking to enforce international arbitration awards in US courts. The third, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 146 S. Ct. 628 (2026), addresses whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the President to impose tariffs—a ruling that goes to the heart of the separation of powers and the boundaries of executive authority over international trade. And the fourth, Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, 2026 WL 598435 (2026), clarifies the standard of review that federal courts must apply when evaluating an immigration agency’s determination of “persecution”—a question with implications for asylum systems worldwide. For Israeli legal professionals, these decisions offer both instructive parallels and cautionary lessons regarding the enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards, executive authority, and the rights of asylum seekers. What follows is a concise analysis of each decision. 1. Republic of Hungary v. Simon: Holocaust-Era Property Claims and the Limits on the “Expropriation Exception” to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Background Few cases before the Supreme Court carry the moral gravity of Republic of Hungary v. Simon. The plaintiffs/respondents were Jewish survivors of the Hungarian Holocaust and their heirs, seeking damages for property allegedly seized by Hungary and its national railway, MÁV, during the Second World War. Their complaint recounted that Hungarian officials stripped Jewish citizens of their possessions before transporting them to Nazi death camps, and that the Hungarian Government declared “all valuable objects owned by Jews” to be “art of the national wealth of Hungary.” Winston Churchill described the Hungarian Holocaust as “probably the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the history of the world.” The plaintiffs/respondents brought suit in the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C.. §1605(a) (3), which permits suits against foreign states when “rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue” and the property, or property “exchanged for” the expropriated property, has a commercial nexus to the United States. The plaintiffs alleged that Hungary had liquidated the stolen property, commingled the proceeds with government funds, and later used funds from those commingled accounts in connection with commercial activities in the United States—such as issuing bonds and purchasing military equipment in the 2000s. US — INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=