The tort claim against these three entities collectively referred to as the Saudi government alleged that Mr. Nelson, a hospital engineer in Riyadh, was subjected to illicit incarceration, routine torture spanning a four-day period, and failure to admonish him as to the potential risks incurred by whistle-blowing.

Based on the Saudi government's alleged wrongful actions, Mr. Nelson believed the US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) authorized the court jurisdiction to hear the case.

Shortly after employment began he discovered numerous safety violations and defects throughout the hospital, of which he promptly informed his superiors and a Saudi government commission of the infractions.

The Court's majority opinion, delivered by Justice Souter, held that the wrongful injury claim brought by Mr. and Mrs. Nelson was not “based upon a commercial activity” according to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (section 1605(a)(2)).

Only States perform acts such as unlawful detention of private citizens, torture, conduct foreign engagements, and diplomatic relations.

Under FSIA, the Saudi Government's operation of the hospital, employment practices, and disciplinary procedures were “based upon commercial activity” and therefore the plaintiff has proven the court does have jurisdiction.

Additionally, unlike Justice White, he believes the defendant's commercial activities did have adequate contact within the United States to fulfill an immunity exception under the FSIA.