Whether the choice of a U.S. forum by U.S.-resident plaintiffs is entitled to 'less deference' under the doctrine of forum-non-conveniens, rather than the strong deference typically accorded to a U.S. resident's choice of forum, when the U.S. plaintiffs are joined by foreign co-plaintiffs

QUESTION PRESENTED In applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens, this Court has long held that U.S.-resident plaintiffs are entitled to a “strong presumption” in favor of their choice of a U.S. forum. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255 (1981). The Second Circuit, however, has replaced that presumption with a test that affords “less deference” to U.S. plaintiffs’ chosen forum when a majority of co-plaintiffs reside abroad. App., infra, 19a. Applying that approach here, the court of appeals upheld dismissal of an action by hundreds of victims of terrorism to satisfy U.S.-court judgments against assets of Iran under U.S. law. The court held that the preference of 202 U.S.-resident plaintiffs to litigate in the United States deserved only “minimal deference,” id. at 20a, because their suit was also joined by more than 400 non-U.S.-resident coplaintiffs. The question presented is as follows: Whether the choice of a U.S. forum by U.S.-resident plaintiffs is entitled to “less deference” under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, rather than the strong deference typically accorded to a U.S. resident’s choice of forum, when the U.S. plaintiffs are joined by foreign co-plaintiffs.