Ex Parte Republic of Peru (SCOTUS 1943)

Summary

The Court held that it had jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition or mandamus in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and that the case presented an exceptional matter warranting immediate Supreme Court intervention. It held that Peru had not waived sovereign immunity by appearing, posting a release bond, taking the master's testimony, or seeking extensions while expressly reserving immunity, and that the State Department's formal recognition of immunity required the district court to release the vessel and proceed no further. Justice Frankfurter, dissenting, would have denied review or required Peru to seek relief first in the court of appeals.

Holding

Supreme Court jurisdiction to issue the requested writ. The Supreme Court had jurisdiction to issue prohibition or mandamus to the district court because such common-law writs may be used in aid of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.

Whether direct Supreme Court intervention was appropriate. The Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction without requiring Peru to proceed first in the court of appeals because the case involved the dignity and rights of a friendly sovereign and presented an exceptional matter of public importance.

Whether Peru waived sovereign immunity through its litigation conduct. Peru did not waive sovereign immunity by intervening, posting a release bond, taking the master's testimony, or obtaining extensions of time to plead because it consistently reserved its immunity claim and did not unqualifiedly submit to adjudication.

Effect of the State Department's recognition and certification of immunity. Once the State Department recognized and allowed Peru's immunity claim and the Attorney General certified that determination to the district court, the court was required to release the vessel and proceed no further in the cause.

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities