Do the general exceptions to foreign state immunity under Section 1604 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act pierce the separate immunity provision of Section 2337 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, and does a foreign state's use of U.S.-based correspondent accounts to transfer funds constitute a direct injury under OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs?

Section 2333 of the Anti -Terrorism Act (“ATA”) creates a private civil remedy for U.S. nationals injured by an “act of international terrorism ,” including mandatory awards of treble damages and attorneys’ fees. 18 U.S.C. § 2333. But Section 2337 of the ATA explicitly shields foreign states from such lawsuits, categorically providing that: “ No action shall be maintained under section 2333 of this title against . . . a foreign state, an agency of a foreign state , or an officer or employee of a foreign state or an agency thereof . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 2337. The one and only express exception to the ATA’s recognition of sovereign immunity to claims under the ATA comes from the Jus tice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (“JASTA”) , which states that an ATA claim may proceed against a foreign state “[n]otwithstanding section 2337 ” where the “act of international terrorism” caused inj ury within the United States. 18 U.S.C. 2337; Pub. L. 114 –222 (emphasis added) . The ATA contains no other exception to sovereign immunity. The questions presented are: 1. Do t he general exceptions to foreign state immunity under Section 1604 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) , including its so -called “commercial activity exception,” also pierce the separate immunity provision of Section 2337 of the ATA, even though JASTA is the only provision of the FSIA (or indeed the entire federal code ) to expressly abrogate Section 2337 of the ATA ?; and ii 2. If so, then —under OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs , 577 U.S. 27 (2015) —does a foreign state’s use of U.S. -based correspondent accounts to transfer funds that allegedly flowed to supporters of Ukrainian separatists constitute the act that “directly injured” Respondents when Respondents’ claims are based on injuries sustained in an alleged terrorist attack in Ukraine ?