1. Whether the Discretionary Function Rule within
the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1605(a)(5)(A)—which preserves foreign sovereign
immunity for "any claim based upon the exercise or
performance or the failure to exercise or perform a
discretionary function regardless of whether the
discretion be abused"—applies to claims based upon a
presidential security detail's use of force during an
official state visit to the United States, when they are
acting within the scope of their employment.

2. Whether the D.C. Circuit's Opinion conflicts with
relevant decisions of this Court interpreting the policy
prong of the Discretionary Function Rule by
authorizing judges to second-guess whether a visiting
presidential security detail's discretionary use of
physical force was "plausibly" related to protecting
their president, rather than determining whether a
presidential security detail's decisions to physically
engage with encroaching civilians is "susceptible to
policy analysis."

3. Which party bears the burden of proving that the
Discretionary Function Rule does not apply?

Whether the Discretionary Function Rule within the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies to claims based upon a presidential security detail's use of force during an official state visit