# Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services, Inc.

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 18, 2007 · 551 U.S. 224

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435042

## Case

- **Full name:** Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services, Inc., Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 18, 2007
- **Citations:** 551 U.S. 224; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 368; 75 U.S.L.W. 4437; 127 S. Ct. 2411; 168 L. Ed. 2d 112; 2007 U.S. LEXIS 7898
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kennedy
- **Judges:** Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Auto, Breyer, Stevens
- **Cited by:** 364 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435042

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that there was no reason to believe that the district court’s remand was actually based on section 1367(c) because the court never mentioned the possibility of supplemental jurisdiction, there was no indication that the parties ever even argued to the district court th…
- recognizing that the applicability of the City of Waco exception has been restricted to reviewable orders that (1) have a preclusive effect upon the parties in subsequent proceedings and (2) are severable, both logically and factually, from the remand order
- explaining that the “maxim” that “identical words and phrases within the same statute should normally be given the same meaning” is “doubly appropriate” where the phrase in question is inserted into two provisions “at the same time”
- recognizing the difficulty of answering that question, given that “the line between misclassifying a ground as subject-matter jurisdiction and misapplying a proper ground of subject-matter jurisdiction is sometimes elusively thin”
- holding that the forum selection clause was mandatory when the contract stated that “any action thereunder shall be brought before the Tokyo District Court in Japan”

## Opinion text

Justice Kennedy,
with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring.
When Congress acted through the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U. S. C. § 1602 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. IV), to codify certain protections and immunities for foreign sovereigns and the entities of those sovereigns, it no doubt considered its action to be of importance for maintaining a proper relationship with other nations. And so it is troubling to be required to issue a decision that might well frustrate a policy of importance to our own Government.
As the Court explains, however, the structure and wording of § 1447(d) (2000 ed.) leave us no other choice. There is no latitude for us to reach a different result. If it is true that the statute as written and the judgment we issue today are inconsistent with the intent and purpose Congress wanted to express, then the immediate jeopardy that foreign sovereign entities will now face should justify urgent legislative action to enact the necessary statutory revisions.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435042. Public record. Not legal advice.