Whether in a breach of contract case under the FSIA's third clause, courts must apply traditional causation principles or require an additional finding about the contract's place of performance

This case concerns the correct interpretation of two clauses of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) that have resulted in two circuit splits. The latter two clauses of the FSIA’s commercial-activity provision authorize suits against foreign sovereigns that are based “[2] upon an act performed in the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere; or [3] upon an act outside the territory of the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect in the United States.” The questions presented are: 1.Whether, in a breach of contract case under the FSIA’s third clause, it is sufficient to prove a “direct effect” in the United States applying traditional causation principles, as four circuits have held, or whether courts must make an additional finding that the contract at issue established or necessarily contemplated the United States as a place of performance, as six circuits have held. 2.Whether the “act performed in the United States” giving rise to jurisdiction in an action under the FSIA’s second clause must be an “act” by the foreign sovereign, as the D.C. Circuit has held, or whether the FSIA’s text contains no such limitation, as the Fourth Circuit has held.