Lewis v. The Government of England and the United Kingdom

Background

Marion T.D. Lewis, a lawyer proceeding without an attorney, filed this action against The Government of England and the United Kingdom and The Institution of the British Monarchy or the Crown. Her amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated her rights under the United States Constitution by participating in the transatlantic slave trade centuries ago.

Lewis moved for a preliminary injunction, an emergency court order intended to preserve rights or prevent harm while a case continues. She asked the court to freeze $3 billion in British Monarchy assets, prevent the defendants from removing property located in the United States, appoint a civil receiver, and issue an “anti-suit injunction.”

Service Issue

Lewis argued that she had properly served the defendants under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act by mailing the summons and complaint to the Foreign Minister and Head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The court explained that, under the Hague Convention, sending the documents to the foreign country’s central authority is a request for service, after which that authority must determine whether the request complies with the Convention, serve the documents, and return a service certificate.

Lewis acknowledged that she had not received a response from the central authority. The court therefore stated that service on the defendants did not appear to be complete under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The court did not expressly make that issue the basis for its final disposition of the motion.

Court’s Analysis

To obtain a preliminary injunction, Lewis had to show that she was likely to suffer irreparable harm—an actual and imminent injury that could not be repaired through monetary damages—and also satisfy the applicable merits-and-hardship requirement. The court described irreparable harm as the most important prerequisite and said it did not need to address the remaining requirements if that showing was absent.

The court identified two reasons Lewis had not shown irreparable harm. First, she waited more than three months after filing the lawsuit to seek the injunction, while the alleged underlying harm arose from events centuries earlier. The court said this delay suggested that emergency relief was not necessary. Second, Lewis appeared primarily to seek monetary damages. The court said financial harm ordinarily does not establish irreparable harm and that Lewis had not adequately shown that the defendants would hide or transfer assets to frustrate a future judgment.

The court noted in a footnote that there were likely serious questions about whether Lewis could show a likelihood of success on the merits, but it did not decide that issue because she had not shown irreparable harm.

Disposition

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied Lewis’s motion for a preliminary injunction without prejudice to renew. The opinion addressed the request for interim relief and did not decide the underlying constitutional claims.