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

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The questions presented are: 1. 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 ordinarily provided to a U.S. resident’s choice of forum, when the U.S. plaintiffs are joined by foreign co-plaintiffs and all plaintiffs as judgment creditors seek to enforce their U.S. judgments obtained pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. 2. Whether the Constitution’s separation of powers principle requires a federal court, in applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens, to follow a strong presumption in favor of the choice of forum by plaintiffs who seek to enforce and satisfy their U.S. judgments pursuant to a statutory remedy expressly provided them by Congress in furtherance of its foreign affairs determinations and authorities.