Lawmakers Urge Supreme Court to Hear Argentina Case
Members of Congress and advocacy groups want the high court to review a $16.1 billion judgment against Argentina over its former YPF stake.
Updated on Nov. 10, 2026 in Law
Live Poll
Should Americans be able to sue foreign governments in U.S. courts?
Members of Congress and advocacy organizations are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the $16.1 billion Petersen Energia Inversora v. Argentina case. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not apply, striking down the judgment.
Why it matters
The ruling bears on whether foreign states can be held liable in U.S. courts for breaching investor contracts. A decision to let the ruling stand could give foreign nations broad authority to host legal proceedings in countries with their own laws.
A federal court struck down the $16.1 billion judgment because the case was heard before American judges rather than in Argentina. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to take up the appeal.
The players
Eric Schmitt
Republican U.S. senator from Missouri who wrote a brief to the high court supporting holding foreign states liable.
Republican Action for Argentina
The only American group supporting the Argentine government in the case, arguing investors did not state a proper claim.
The details
Investors in YPF, which went public on the New York Stock Exchange in 1993, sued after the Argentine government took control of the company in 2012 and broke off an agreement to pay out shareholders. Republican Action for Argentina, the only American group supporting Argentina in the case, argued that investors did not state a proper claim under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which was adopted in 1976.
Timeline
1976: Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act adopted.
1993: YPF goes public on the New York Stock Exchange.
2012: Argentine government takes control of YPF.
Legal Context
The case centers on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, adopted in 1976, which governs when foreign governments can be sued in U.S. courts. The Second Circuit's narrowing of its reach puts that statute's commercial-activity exception under Supreme Court review.
If the ruling stands, U.S. investors may find it harder to recover losses from foreign governments that breach contracts. The outcome could also shape how foreign states are sued in American courts.
The takeaway
The case highlights a tension between enforcing investor contracts and respecting foreign sovereignty. The Supreme Court's choice on whether to hear it will set a significant precedent for cross-border lawsuits.
Further reading
For more on how courts handle claims against foreign governments, see Law coverage.
Source note: This article includes information reported by MDJOnline.
Live Poll
Should Americans be able to sue foreign governments in U.S. courts?
