Summary

Portrait of Felix Frankfurter Felix Frankfurter National City Bank of New York v…

This chilly feeling against sovereign immunity began to reflect itself in federal legislation in 1797. [3] At that early day Congress decided that when the United States sues an individual, the individual can set off all debts properly due him from the sovereign. And because of the objections to ad hoc legislative allowance of private claims, Congress a hundred years ago created the Court of Claims, [4] where the United States, like any other obligor, may affirmatively be held to its undertakings.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Felix Frankfurter Felix Frankfurter National City Bank of New York v…

The status of the Republic of China in our courts is a matter for determination by the Executive and is outside the competence of this Court. Accordingly, we start with the fact that the Republic and its governmental agencies enjoy a foreign sovereign's immunities to the same extent as any other country duly recognized by the United States. See Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. United States, 304 U.S. 126, 137-138, 58 S.Ct. 785, 791, 82 L.Ed. 1224.
The freedom of a foreign sovereign from being haled into court as a defendant has impressive title-deeds.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Felix Frankfurter Felix Frankfurter National City Bank of New York v…

Respondent urges that fiscal management falls within the category of immune operations of a foreign government as defined by the State Department's 1952 pronouncement. This is not to be denied, but it is beside the point. A sovereign has freely come as a suitor into our courts; our State Department neither has been asked nor has it given the slightest intimation that in its judgment allowance of counterclaims in such a situation would embarrass friendly relations with the Republic of China.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature