Curtis Publishes Annual Review of Supreme Court Cases with Implications for Global Business

More than a decade ago, Justice Stephen Breyer authored a book titled “The Court and the World,” in which he envisioned the U.S. Supreme Court as a pivotal player in resolving disputes of international significance in an increasingly globalized world. Although the Court seems to have retrenched towards more domestic matters in recent years, several of its decisions this term reverberated globally, starting with its much anticipated decision striking down President Trump’s signature policy imposing tariffs on virtually all U.S. trade partners. This year, we review seven cases with implications for international business and world affairs.

Learning Resources v. Trump: The U.S. Executive lacks authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, but other statutes grant the president the power to do so subject to strict procedural and substantive requirements. Importers are seeking refunds of the IEEPA tariffs.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe: Companies cannot be sued for aiding and abetting human rights violations committed abroad unless the claim was a recognized violation of international law at the time the Alien Tort Statute was enacted in 1789, virtually shutting the doors of U.S. courts to such claims.

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A.: A statute that creates a cause of action for trafficking in property taken by the Cuban government and names agencies and instrumentalities of foreign states as potential defendants abrogates their foreign sovereign immunity, obviating the need to establish a separate exception to jurisdictional immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The FSIA’s grant of immunity from execution against sovereign property could still present a significant bar to recovery.

Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties: A federal court with jurisdiction to stay an action for arbitration retains jurisdiction to confirm or vacate a resulting arbitral award under the Federal Arbitration Act. This approach is consistent with the Act’s structure of allowing the court that stayed the action to supervise the arbitration. 

Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment: Knowingly providing internet services to copyright infringers does not by itself make the internet service provider liable for the infringement. Affirmative conduct such as inducement is needed to create contributory liability under the Copyright Act.

FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd.: The Securities and Exchange Commission is the primary enforcer of provisions allowing for rescission of contracts that allegedly violate the Investment Company Act. The Act does not create an implied private right of action to sue under those provisions. 

Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission: No proof that investors suffered pecuniary damages is needed for the Securities and Exchange Commission to obtain disgorgement of ill-gotten gains in securities fraud cases.

A Word About Our Process

In preparing this year’s report, we asked our contributing associates to prompt Lexis Protégé to generate the first draft of each case summary. Each associate employed their own prompting techniques.

Consistent with Curtis’ internal AI policy, our contributing attorneys reviewed and revised Protégé’s outputs to ensure accuracy, appropriateness and completeness based on their independent analyses. While we continue to develop our AI capabilities for the benefit of our clients, our most valuable asset remains our professional experience and human judgment.

We disclose this process consistent with Curtis’ internal AI policy’s emphasis on transparency. Nothing in this disclosure implies Lexis’ affiliation, endorsement, or sponsorship.

The image on the cover was generated using OpenAI’s GPT-5.5.