Portal:Supreme Court of the United States

“ But what about §1608 (a) (3) , the provision now before us? Who is more comparable to those who sign for mail under §§1608 (a) (1) and (2) ? A person who works in the office of the foreign minister in the minister’s home country and is authorized to receive and process the minister’s mail? Or a mailroom employee in a foreign embassy? We think the answer is obvious, and therefore interpreting §1608 (a) (3) to require that a service packet be sent to a foreign minister’s own office better harmonizes the rules for determining when service is deemed to have been made. ”

“ Since a foreign nation’s embassy in the United States is neither the residence nor the usual place of business of that nation’s foreign minister and is not a place where the minister can customarily be found, the most common understanding of the minister’s “address” is inconsistent with the interpretation of §1608 (a) (3) adopted by the court below and advanced by respondents.
We acknowledge that there are circumstances in which a mailing may be “addressed” to the intended recipient at a place other than the individual’s residence or usual place of business. ”

“ But there are circumstances in which the rule of law demands adherence to strict requirements even when the equities of a particular case may seem to point in the opposite direction. The service rules set out in §1608 (a) (3) , which apply to a category of cases with sensitive diplomatic implications, clearly fall into this category. Under those rules, all cases must be treated the same.
Moreover, as respondents’ counsel acknowledged at oral argument, holding that Sudan was not properly served under §1608 (a) (3) is not the end of the road. ”