Golan v. Saada
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Golan v. Saada and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Golan v. Saada.
The Supreme Court in Golan v. Saada addressed whether a court is required to consider all possible ameliorative measures before denying a petition under the Hague Convention when a grave risk of harm is found. The Court determined that such a categorical requirement is not mandated by the Convention. The case was vacated and remanded for the District Court to apply the correct legal standard.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Golan v. Saada.
The Court held that a court is not categorically required to examine all possible ameliorative measures before denying a Hague Convention petition for return of a child once a grave risk of harm is found.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Golan v. Saada. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Golan v. Saada
The Court's decision involves interpreting the discretion allowed to courts under the Hague Convention and ICARA, which is a form of judicial review.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The discretion to courts under the Convention and ICARA includes the discretion to determine whether to consider ameliorative measures that could ensure the child's safe return.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Golan v. Saada
The case involves the procedural question of whether courts must consider all ameliorative measures before denying a petition under the Hague Convention, implicating procedural fairness.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)A court is not categorically required to examine all possible ameliorative measures before denying a Hague Convention petition for return of a child to a foreign country once the court has found that return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm.
-
Why Remedies and Relief is relevant to Golan v. Saada
The case addresses the scope of remedies a court may order under the Hague Convention, specifically whether ameliorative measures must be considered.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Second Circuit's contrary rule—which imposes an atextual, categorical requirement that courts consider all possible ameliorative measures in exercising discretion under the Convention, regardless of whether such consideration is consistent with the Convention's objectives—'in practice, rewrite[s] the treaty.'
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Golan v. Saada that support the summary and concepts above.
A court is not categorically required to examine all possible ameliorative measures before denying a Hague Convention petition for return of a child.
The Convention does not pursue return exclusively or at all costs.
The discretion to courts under the Convention and ICARA includes the discretion to determine whether to consider ameliorative measures.
