The Supreme Court of the United States announced the following three decisions today:

Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, No. 12-820: After learning that his wife abducted their three-year-old daughter and fled to the United States, Petitioner filed a Petition for Return of Child pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“Hague Convention”) and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (“ICARA”), 42 U.S.C. §11603, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for return of the child to the United Kingdom. Generally, when a parent abducts a child and flees to another country, Article 12 of the Hague Convention requires that the country return the child immediately if the other parent requests return within one year. The issue raised in the Petition was whether that one-year period is subject to equitable tolling when the abducting parent conceals the child’s location from the other parent. The district court denied the Petition on the basis that the one-year period could not be extended by equitable tolling and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning the one-year period in Article 12 permits courts, after that period has run, to consider the interests of the child in settlement and that equitable tolling would undermine the purpose of the Hague Convention by delaying consideration of the child’s interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the one-year period is not subject to equitable tolling.

The Court's decision is available here.

BG Group plc v. Republic of Argentina, No. 12-138: A provision in an investment treaty between the United Kingdom and Argentina authorizes a party to submit a dispute to a local court where the investment was made and then to arbitration if the local court has not made a decision within 18 months after the dispute was submitted. The dispute involved a British firm that invested in an arrangement to distribute natural gas in Argentina. After the British firm invested its money, Argentina adopted new laws that turned the venture from one generating profits into one generating losses. Instead of filing suit in a local court in Argentina as provided in the investment treaty, the British firm filed an arbitration suit in the United States. The arbitrators concluded that Argentina had denied the British firm “fair and equitable treatment” and awarded the firm $185 million in damages. Both sides sought review in federal district court; the British firm to confirm the award under the New York Convention and the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), and Argentina to vacate the award, in part on the ground that the arbitrators lacked jurisdiction under the FAA. The district court confirmed the award, but the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the arbitrators had the authority to interpret the local litigation precondition to the investment treaty’s arbitration clause, and thus acted within their authority when awarding damages.

The Court's decision is available here.

Rosemond v. United States, No. 12-895: Petitioner participated in a drug deal in which either he or one of his confederates fired a gun. The federal government charged Petitioner with aiding or abetting a violation of 18 U.S.C. §924(c), which prohibits using or carrying a gun in connection with a drug trafficking crime. The district court instructed the jury that Petitioner was guilty of aiding and abetting a violation of Section 924(c) if he (1) “knew his cohort used a firearm in the drug trafficking crime” and (2) “knowingly and actively participated in the drug trafficking crime.” Petitioner was convicted, and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded, holding that the trial court’s instructions were erroneous because they failed to require that Petitioner knew in advance that one of his confederates would be armed.

The Court's decision is available here.