contended that a finding of jurisdiction over them would violate due process. Id. at 619, 112 S.Ct. 2160. The Supreme Court assumed, without deciding, that a foreign state was a person for the purpose of the Due Process Clause, and held that Argentina had sufficient minimum corn tacts. Id. At the same time, however, the Supreme Court cited South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 323-324, 86 S.Ct. 803, 15 L.Ed.2d 769 (1966) for the proposition that “States of the Union are not ‘persons’ for purposes of the Due Process Clause.” Id. Following Weltover, the vast majority of federal courts’ to address this issue have determined that foreign states are not persons within the meaning of the Due Process Clause. See, e.g., Abelesz v. Magyar Nemzeti Bank, 692 F.3d 661, 694 (7th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>); Frontera Res. Azerbaijan Corp. v. State Oil
holding school boards are persons within the meaning of the fifth amendment due process clause holding municipalities  are not persons within the meaning of the due process clause of the fifth or fourteenth amendments holding states are not persons for the purposes of section 1983 holding that foreign states are not persons entitled to rights under the due process clause holding the double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment