Tag Archives: Rathna Ramamurthi

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Anti-Terrorism Act Claims Against Social Media Platforms Used By ISIS

by Carmine D. Boccuzzi Jr., Mark E. McDonald, Leila Mgaloblishvili, Miranda Herzog, Nowell D. Bamberger, Chase D. Kaniecki, and Rathna Ramamurthi

Photos of the authors

From top left to right: Carmine D. Boccuzzi Jr., Mark E. McDonald, Leila Mgaloblishvili, and Miranda Herzog.
From bottom left to right: Nowell D. Bamberger, Chase D. Kaniecki, and Rathna Ramamurthi.
(Photos courtesy of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP)

On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, et al.,[1] unanimously rejecting claims against Twitter, Facebook and Google (as the owner of YouTube) for allegedly aiding and abetting ISIS in its commission of terrorist attacks.  Plaintiffs, who were injured in an ISIS-sponsored terrorist attack on the Reina nightclub in Istanbul in 2017, alleged that Twitter, Facebook and Google were liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act (“ATA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a), as amended by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (“JASTA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2333(d)(2), because they allegedly knowingly allowed ISIS to use their social media platforms and “recommendation” algorithm tools, profited from advertising revenue on ISIS content, and failed to take sufficient steps to remove ISIS-affiliated accounts.  The Supreme Court held that these allegations were insufficient to establish aiding and abetting liability under JASTA, in a decision that substantially clarifies the circumstances under which companies in the U.S. who offer widely-available and generalized services may be liable for complicity in terrorist attacks.

Continue reading →

Second Circuit Rules Foreign State-Owned Bank Does Not Have Sovereign Immunity From Criminal Prosecution

by Carmine Boccuzzi, Jr., Jonathan Kolodner, Rahul Mukhi, Boaz Morag, Rathna Ramamurthi, Hyatt Mustefa, and Matthew Slater 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held in U.S. v. Halkbank[1] that a Turkish state-owned bank did not have sovereign immunity from criminal charges that it engaged in a conspiracy to launder $20 billion of Iranian oil and gas proceeds in violation of U.S. sanctions.

While the district court had joined other Circuit courts in ruling that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) does not confer on foreign sovereigns immunity from criminal prosecutions, the Second Circuit declined to decide that unsettled issue, except insofar as it held that the FSIA is not the only source of criminal jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign.  Instead, the Second Circuit assumed arguendo that the FSIA confers immunity in the criminal context and held that the conduct at issue would fall under the FSIA’s commercial activity exception to immunity. 

Continue reading →