1. This case presents an important and recurring question concerning the legal standard for dismissing suits filed in U.S. federal court under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. This Court made clear in Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981), that a defendant invoking that doctrine to dismiss a U.S. suit in favor of a foreign venue must "overcome" a "strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff's choice of forum," and the plaintiff's choice deserves even "greater deference when the plaintiff has chosen [his or her] home forum." Id. at 255. But the courts of appeals disagree over whether that strong presumption dissipates when both U.S.-resident and non-U.S.-resident plaintiffs join together in one suit. At least three circuits hold that Piper's well-established general principle continues to apply. But the Second Circuit has long and repeatedly applied an exception to that presumption and affords "minimal deference to plaintiffs' choice of forum" if most of the plaintiffs reside in foreign countries. App., infra, 16a. The Second Circuit again applied that exception here to affirm the dismissal of a suit by hundreds of terrorism victims seeking to enforce U.S. judgments in U.S. court.

2. The court of appeals' approach conflicts directly with decisions of at least three other circuits that have rejected the exception to Piper's presumption that the Second Circuit has applied where U.S.-resident and foreign plaintiffs bring suit together.

Whether the strong presumption in favor of a plaintiff's choice of forum under Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno applies with equal force when a suit includes both United States-resident and foreign-resident plaintiffs, or whether courts may apply a diminished standard of deference based on the proportion of foreign plaintiffs