Case Citator › In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001

In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Second Circuit
Citation
538 F.3d 71
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
31 of 31
Citing cases (total)
31
Treatment dates
2010–2011
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 was overruled in part. All 31 flagged citations have been read, and two confirmed adverse treatments are listed below.
More on how this was screened

The Supreme Court displaced its ruling that individual foreign officials receive immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The Second Circuit rejected its view that the Act's terrorism exception foreclosed use of the noncommercial tort exception for terrorist acts. A later court considered the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act but did not determine that it displaced this opinion's holding. Other portions, including its personal jurisdiction and jurisdictional discovery analysis, continue to be cited.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

31 later cases cite In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001; 31 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Second Circuit rejected this opinion's ruling that the FSIA terrorism exception barred reliance on the noncommercial tort exception for terrorist acts, using its procedure for resolving a conflict with an earlier panel.

    Doe v. Bin Laden · Second Circuit · filed

    We recognize that this holding is inconsistent with that reached by a different panel of our Court in In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 538 F.3d 71, 89 (2d Cir. 2008), abrogated in part on other grounds by Samantar v. Yousuf, 130 S. Ct. 2278 (2010). That panel, however, was presented with sparse and one-sided argument on this point in the context of a very large and complex case that focused on other aspects of the FSIA. This opinion has been circulated to the members of that panel as well as all active judges on our Court, and we have received no objection to our issuing this opinion.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court displaced this opinion's holding that the FSIA governs immunity for individual foreign officials acting in their official capacities.

    Samantar v. Yousuf · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    It is true that an individual official could be an “agency or instrumentality,” if that term is given the meaning of “any thing or person through which action is accomplished,” In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 538 F. 3d 71, 83 (CA2 2008). But Congress has specifically defined “agency or instrumentality” in the FSIA, and all of the textual clues in that definition cut against such a broad construction.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace