Whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's expropriation exception requires plaintiffs to trace property exchanged for expropriated assets to establish jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign

No question identified. : To the Honorable John G. Roberts Jr., as Circuit Justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: The Republic of Hungary and Magyar Allamvasutak Zrt. (“MAV”) respectfully request a 30-day extension of time to file their petition for writ of certiorari. This request, if granted, would extend the deadline from January 10, 2024, to February 9, 2024. The Court of Appeals issued its opinion on August 8, 2023 (App. A) and denied rehearing on October 12, 2023 (App. B). This Court has jurisdiction to review the D.C. Circuit’s judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). Background Three years ago, this Court granted certiorari in this case to resolve a circuit split concerning the expropriation exception in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (‘FSIA”). Simon v. Republic of Hungary, 141 8. Ct. 187 (2020). On remand, the D.C. Circuit created a new circuit split regarding that same provision. Compare Simon v. Republic of Hungary, 77 F.4th 1077, 1104 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (“Simon IIT’), with Rukoro v. Fed. Republic of Germany, 976 F.3d 218, 225-26 (2d Cir. 2020). The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has correctly held that the expropriation exception requires a plaintiff to “trace the proceeds a sovereign received from expropriated property.” Rukoro, 976 F.3d at 225-26. In contrast, the D.C. Circuit reached the opposite conclusion, holding “plaintiffs had no such burden” and need not “produce evidence tracing property in the United States or possessed by MAV to property expropriated from them.” Simon III, 77 F.4th at 1118. The procedural history leading to this circuit split is lengthy. In summary, certain plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Hungary and MAV (the Hungarian national railway) alleging expropriation of property during World War II. The District Court dismissed that action under the FSIA’s treaty exception. Simon v. Republic of Hungary, 37 F. Supp. 3d 381, 407 (D.D.C. 2014). The D.C. Circuit reversed. Simon v. Republic of Hungary, 812 F.3d 127 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (“Simon I’). It held that the treaty at issue was inapplicable and that the expropriation exception did not incorporate the “domestic takings rule,” which holds that a sovereign’s taking of property from its own nationals does not implicate international law. Simon I, 812 F.3d at 144-45. On remand, the District Court again dismissed, this time based on comity abstention and forum non conveniens. Simon v. Republic of Hungary, 277 F.3d 42, 67 (D.D.C. 2017). The D.C. Circuit again reversed. Simon v. Republic of Hungary, 911 F.3d 1172 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (“Simon IP’). After Simon II, this Court granted Hungary’s first petition for certiorari. Simon v. Republic of Hungary, 141 8. Ct. 187 (2020). It also granted certiorari in a case raising similar issues regarding the expropriation exception to the FSIA. Fed. Republic of Germany v. Philipp, 1418. Ct. 185 (2020). In Philipp, this Court resolved a circuit split by holding that the expropriation exception “refers to violations of the international law of expropriation and thereby incorporates the domestic takings rule.” Fed. Republic of Germany v. Philipp, 592 U.S. 169, 187 (2021). This Court vacated and remanded this case for further proceedings consistent with Philipp. Republic of Hungary v. Simon, 592 U.S. 207, 208 (2021). On remand, the District Court denied Hungary’s motion to dismiss as to nine named plaintiffs who claimed to be Czechoslovakian nationals at the time of the alleged takings. Simon v. Republic of Hungary, 579 F. Supp. 3d 91, 97 (D.D.C. 2021). It dismissed the claims of those plaintiffs who were shown to be Hungarian nationals. Id. The same District Court dismissed similar claims brought in a separate action. Heller v. Republic of Hungary, No. 21-CV-1739 (BAH), 2022 WL 2802351, at *6 (D.D.C. July 18, 2022). The D.C. Circuit consolidated those appeals. Simon III, 77 F.4th at 1087. It then issued the opinion on which applicants se