The decisions of the US Supreme Court have always carried weight beyond the continental United States. In an era of global commerce, cross-border litigation, and interconnected legal systems, the Court’s rulings on sovereign immunity, executive power, international arbitration, and immigration law have global significance. They are particularly important for lawyers operating across jurisdictions—whether advising multinational clients, enforcing arbitral awards, navigating trade regulations, or handling matters touching on state sovereignty.

I recently wrote an article for U.S.-Israel Legal Review that examines four Supreme Court decisions from the Court’s 2024 and 2025 Terms with significant implications for international legal practice. The first, Republic of Hungary v. Simon, 604 US 115 (2025), concerns the scope of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s expropriation exception and the limits of suing a foreign sovereign for property seized decades ago—a question with deep resonance for Holocaust restitution and, more broadly, for any claim arising from historical state confiscation. The second, CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp., 605 US 223 (2025), resolves a circuit split over whether the FSIA requires proof of “minimum contacts” for personal jurisdiction over a foreign state—a decision of immediate practical consequence for parties seeking to enforce international arbitration awards in US courts.

The third, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 146 S. Ct. 628 (2026), addresses whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the President to impose tariffs—a ruling that goes to the heart of the separation of powers and the boundaries of executive authority over international trade. And the fourth, Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, 2026 WL 598435 (2026), clarifies the standard of review that federal courts must apply when evaluating an immigration agency’s determination of “persecution”—a question with implications for asylum systems worldwide. For Israeli legal professionals, these decisions offer both instructive parallels and cautionary lessons regarding the enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards, executive authority, and the rights of asylum seekers.

Click here to read the full text of the article in U.S.-Israel Legal Review