[1] The case arose after a California resident suffered traumatic personal injuries while attempting to board a train in Innsbruck, Austria.

[4] In response, the plaintiff argued that her suit should be permitted under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act's commercial activity exception because she purchased her rail ticket in the United States.

[5] Writing for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice John Roberts held that the plaintiff's injury was "based upon" conduct that occurred solely in Austria, and the suit therefore fell outside the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's commercial activity exception.

[6] Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that "the conduct constituting the gravamen of Sachs's suit plainly occurred abroad".

[19] However, the Ninth Circuit ordered the case to be reheard en banc, and a majority of judges reversed the panel's decision.

[22] Writing for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice John Roberts held that Sachs' injury was "based upon" conduct that occurred solely in Austria, and the suit therefore fell outside the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's commercial activity exception.

[29] Applying the Nelson analysis to the facts of this case, Chief Justice Roberts held that "the conduct constituting the gravamen of Sachs’s suit plainly occurred abroad".

[30] Therefore, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that Sach's suit did not fall within the commercial activity exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and that the Ninth Circuit's opinion should be reversed for lack of jurisdiction.

[9] Lyle Denniston, for example, noted that although "the case focused on one American and one incident, it may well have larger meaning" and that following the Court's opinion, foreign railroads "could rarely, if ever, be held accountable for causing injuries, or worse".