We will hear argument this morning in case 23-867, Hungary v. Simon.

Mr. Glasgow.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court,

Hungary and its national railway, MOV, are immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign

Immunities Act unless the expropriation exception applies.

And the key phrase in that exception is exchanged for.

There's no dispute that to exchange means to give one thing in return for another.

Accordingly, domestic courts have jurisdiction over this case only of some present-day

asset having a commercial nexus with the United States was given in return for items taken

from 14 individuals in 1944.

Respondents have not even attempted to make that showing.

Instead, they rest their case on the theory that all fungible assets of Hungary,

its agencies, and its instrumentalities were given in return for those specific items

taken more than six decades before this case was filed.

That's simply inconsistent with ordinary meaning.

And while this case can be decided on text alone, history and context confirm the limited

scope of the expropriation exception.

It arose from congressional opposition to a particular decision of this court, the Sabatino

decision, which concerned identifiable and traceable property.

When Congress enacted the FSIA, it intended to codify the restrictive view of foreign sovereign

immunity, not to work a radical transformation of international law.

But the commingling theory would do just that.

...