dissenting in part:
I agree with the majority that Doe’s negligence claims against the Holy See, as currently pleaded, cannot proceed under the tortious act exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). Unlike the majority, however, I would affirm the district court’s holding that the FSIA does not give the Holy See immunity from Doe’s claims of negligent retention, supervision, and failure to warn. As explained below, we have jurisdiction to affirm the district court on any grounds that were raised below and supported by the record, and our case law compels the conclusion that Doe’s negligence claims come within the FSIA’s commercial activity exception.
I. Jurisdiction
We have before us an appeal (by the Holy See) and a cross-appeal (by Doe), both seeking reversal of different aspects of the district court’s decision. The Holy See’s appeal, which is authorized under the collateral order doctrine, challenges the district court’s ruling that the FSIA does not provide it with immunity from Doe’s negligence claims. The district court held that although the commercial activity exception does not apply to defeat the Holy See’s assertion of immunity, the tortious act exception does apply, permitting all Doe’s claims except for the fraud claim to go forward. See Doe v. Holy See, 434 F.Supp.2d 925, 957 (D.Or.2006). The Holy See asks us to reverse the district court’s immunity ruling, arguing that the tortious act exception is not applicable to Doe’s negligence claims.
Doe argues, in response, that we should affirm the district court’s ruling that the FSIA does not give the Holy See immunity from his negligence claims — either because the district court correctly held that the tortious act exception applies, or, in the alternative, because the commercial activity exception applies. In addition, Doe filed a cross-appeal, urging us to reverse the district court’s dismissal of his fraud claim, because the commercial activity exception preserves federal subject matter jurisdiction over that claim. His argument concerning his cross-appeal and his response to the Holy See’s appeal of the district court’s ruling as to his negligence claims are presented to us in a single brief, but they are clearly separable.
I agree with the majority and the Holy See that we lack jurisdiction over Doe’s actual cross-appeal — that is, over the question whether the Holy See is immune from Doe’s fraud cause of action. We do, however, have jurisdiction over Doe’s arguments in favor of upholding the district court’s order, including his argument that the non-fraud causes of action, which the district court allowed to go forward, are within the commercial activity exception.
Specifically, I agree that the district court’s grant of immunity with regard to the fraud cause of action is not independently appealable under the collateral order doctrine at this stage in the proceedings. As the majority notes, where a district court has granted sovereign immunity on a particular claim, as opposed to where it has denied immunity and let the claim go forward, the concerns for foreign sovereigns that animate the collateral order doctrine do not apply. See Maj. Op. at 1074 (quoting Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 353, 126 S.Ct. 952, 163 L.Ed.2d 836 (2006)). Further, the district court’s grant of immunity and denial of jurisdiction over Doe’s fraud cause of action will be reviewable at the end of the entire action, so there is no need to allow review of that decision at this time, *1087before there has been a final judgment on the case as a whole. See In re Copley Press, Inc., 518 F.3d 1022, 1025-26 (9th Cir.2008).
Nor may we exercise pendent jurisdiction over Doe’s fraud cause of action in the course of deciding the Holy See’s appeal. To establish jurisdiction over an entity covered by the FSIA, each individual claim contained in the complaint must come within an exception to foreign sovereign immunity. See Joseph v. Office of the Consulate Gen. of Nigeria, 830 F.2d 1018, 1023-25 (9th Cir.1987) (analyzing separately whether each of plaintiffs claims came within an exception to foreign sovereign immunity). Therefore, a holding that Doe’s respondeat superior or negligence claims come within one of the FSIA’s exceptions does not necessarily decide the question whether the fraud claim does so as well. So the fraud cause of action cannot be viewed as “inextricably intertwined” with Doe’s other claims, which would permit us to exercise pendent jurisdiction over it. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Vaughn, 509 F.3d 1085, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2007).
Our consideration of the fraud claim is also not “ ‘necessary to ensure meaningful review of ” the other questions that are properly before us. Meredith v. Oregon, 321 F.3d 807, 812 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Swint v. Chambers County Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 51, 115 S.Ct. 1203, 131 L.Ed.2d 60 (1995)). We have held that decision of an issue is “necessary to ensure meaningful review of’ another question only if the assertedly pendent issue provided the basis for the district court’s jurisdiction to reach the otherwise appealable question. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (holding that review of Younger abstention decision was necessary to ensure meaningful review of the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction, because in the absence of its Younger holding, the district court would not have had jurisdiction to issue the injunction). The denial of the fraud claim in this case, in contrast, was not an essential precursor to the district court’s determination that it had jurisdiction over Doe’s other causes of action. For these reasons, I agree with the majority that the district court’s dismissal of Doe’s fraud claim is not properly before us.
At the same time, I entirely disagree with the majority’s insistence that we lack jurisdiction to decide in full the question that the Holy See has appealed to us: whether the district court erred in denying immunity and exercising jurisdiction over all Doe’s non-fraud causes of action. Doe argues in response that the district court’s ruling should stand, because either the tortious act exception or the commercial activity exception applies and precludes immunity from suit.
As we have stated over and over again, we may affirm the district court on any ground raised below and supported by the record. See, e.g., Atel Fin. Corp. v. Quaker Coal Co., 321 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (“We may affirm a district court’s judgment on any ground supported by the record, whether or not the decision of the district court relied on the same grounds or reasoning we adopt.”); accord Cigna Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Polaris Pictures Corp., 159 F.3d 412, 418-19 (9th Cir.1998); Jackson v. S. Cal. Gas Co., 881 F.2d 638, 643 (9th Cir.1989).
No cross-appeal is required — or appropriate — where we are being asked only to affirm the district court’s judgment in full, albeit on a ground rejected by the district court. We have long held that an appellee is required to file a cross-appeal if he seeks “to support modification of the judgment.” Engleson v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir.1992) (internal quotation marks and citation *1088omitted). In contrast, “arguments that support the judgment as entered can be made without a cross-appeal ... even where the argument being raised has been explicitly rejected by the district court.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); accord Gilliam v. Nev. Power Co., 488 F.3d 1189, 1192 n. 3 (9th Cir.2007) (citing Engleson, and holding that an ap-pellee did not need to cross-appeal to argue for a different standard of review than that used by the district court as an alternative ground for affirming the district court's judgment). In other words, “[s]o long as the appellee does not seek to ‘enlarge’ the rights it obtained under the district court judgment, or to ‘lessen’ the rights the appellant obtained under that judgment, appellee need not cross-appeal in order to present arguments supporting the judgment.” Rivero v. City & County of San Francisco, 316 F.3d 857, 862 (9th Cir.2002); see also Lee v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 245 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir.2001) (“A prevailing party need not cross-petition to defend a judgment on any ground properly raised below, so long as that party seeks to preserve, and not to change, the judgment.”).
So, if we conclude that the tortious act exception is insufficient to support jurisdiction over any of Doe’s non-fraud claims, we may look to the commercial activity exception as an alternative ground on which to affirm the district court. Contrary to the majority’s assertion, by doing so we would not be exercising jurisdiction over Doe’s cross-appeal, in which Doe raises a commercial activity exception argument that would permit the exercise of jurisdiction over his fraud claim. Rather, we would be determining whether the record supports affirmance of the district court’s order as to Doe’s non-fraud claims, which is the subject of the Holy See’s appeal. Put another way, Doe’s cross-appeal asks us to “ ‘enlarge’ the rights [he] obtained under the district court judgment,” Rivero, 316 F.3d at 862, so the majority is quite right that we may not consider his arguments regarding the fraud claim. But Doe needed no cross-appeal to respond to the Holy See’s appeal; Doe could — and did' — respond by asking us simply to preserve the result that the district court reached, either by following the district court’s reasoning or by a different rationale. Our case law clearly permits us to do so.
The majority concludes otherwise, maintaining that deciding the commercial activity issues involves review of a grant of immunity. See Maj. Op. at 1075-76, & n. 5. But that is simply not so. The district court did decide that the commercial activity exception does not apply, but-except for the fraud cause of action-it did not grant immunity on that basis, as it concluded that there was another basis for denying immunity. So the majority is just wrong when it states, repeatedly, that our reaching the commercial activity exception would entail reviewing a grant of immunity.
Moreover, I see no prudential reasons whatever for refusing to exercise our jurisdiction. The application of the commercial activity exception was fully litigated below, the district court decided the question, and the issue has been fully briefed and argued here. See McClure v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 84 F.3d 1129, 1133 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that we can decline on appeal to affirm a summary judgment on grounds not relied on by the district court if the record is inadequate or the grounds not purely legal); Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 575 n. 2 (9th Cir.1991) (declining to affirm the district court on an alternative basis “as a prudential matter,” because the issue had not been briefed by the government, and raised a question of first impression in this Circuit) (internal quotation marks omitted).
*1089The majority disagrees, maintaining that we should not exercise our prudential jurisdiction to support the district court’s denial of immunity, because “a grant of immunity is not interlocutorily appealable at all.” Maj. Op. at 1076 n. 5. This reasoning, once more, mischaracterizes the state of play. The district court did not grant the Holy See immunity except with regard to the fraud cause of action; as to the rest of Doe’s complaint, the district court denied immunity. The exercise of available jurisdiction is thus necessary to decide whether the district court’s denial of immunity should stand. I would conclude that we have jurisdiction to decide the applicability of both the tortious act and commercial activity exceptions to the causes of action that are the subject of the Holy See’s appeal — that is, all the causes of action alleged against the Holy See in Doe’s complaint except for the fraud cause of action.
II. The Commercial Activity Exception
Given my view of the jurisdictional posture of the case, I would reach the merits of the commercial activity question and hold that, although the district court erred in applying the tortious act exception to preserve federal jurisdiction over Doe’s non-fraud negligence claims, the district court’s result should be affirmed on the alternative rationale that the commercial activity exception applies.1
As the majority explains, Doe’s complaint sufficiently alleged an employment relationship between Ronan and the Holy See under Oregon law. Maj. Op. at 1082-83 (citing Fearing v. Bucher, 328 Or. 367, 977 P.2d 1163 (1999)). For the reasons explained in greater detail below, I would hold that that relationship constitutes “commercial activity” for purposes of the FSIA.
Ronan was employed not as a member of the Vatican’s diplomatic, civil service, or military personnel, the employment of whom we have held to be a quintessentially sovereign activity under the FSIA, but in a non-sovereign — here, religious — capacity. See Holden v. Canadian Consulate, 92 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir.1996). Further, Doe’s negligence claims are “based upon” the employment relationship between Ronan and the Holy See, as the FSIA requires. 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2). Doe’s negligent retention, supervision, and failure to warn causes of action against the Holy See therefore fall within FSIA’s commercial activity exception, and the district court has jurisdiction to decide them.
A. The definition of “commercial activity” under the FSIA
The FSIA is often described as having codified the “restrictive” theory of sovereign immunity. See, e.g., H.R.Rep. No. 94-1487, 7 (1976), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 6604; Verlinden B.V. v. Cent. Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 487, 103 S.Ct. 1962, 76 L.Ed.2d 81 (1983). Under the restrictive theory, “a state is immune from the jurisdiction of foreign courts as to its sovereign or public acts (jure imperii), but not as to those that are private or commercial in character (jure gestionis).” Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 359-60, 113 S.Ct. 1471, 123 L.Ed.2d 47 (1993). The Supreme Court has explained that a foreign state engages in “commercial” activities when it “do[es] not exercise powers peculiar to sovereigns,” but rather “exercise[s] only those powers that can be *1090exercised by private citizens.” Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, 504 U.S. 607, 614, 112 S.Ct. 2160, 119 L.Ed.2d 394 (1992) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Clarifying the statute’s requirement that courts look not at the “purpose” of a foreign state’s actions but rather at the “nature” of its actions, 28 U.S.C. § 1603(e), Weltover explained that “the question is not whether the foreign government is acting with a profit motive or instead with the aim of fulfilling uniquely sovereign objectives,” but whether the government’s actions “are the type of actions by which a private party engages in” commerce. 504 U.S. at 614, 112 S.Ct. 2160. The reason why the sovereign engages in that activity — its purpose or motive — is immaterial.
What is more, no profit need be made, or need even be possible, for the activity to qualify as “commercial.” In Weltover, Argentina’s issuance of bonds to refinance its debt was held to be “commercial activity,” even though the consideration Argentina received for them was “in no way commensurate with [their] value.” Id. at 616, 112 S.Ct. 2160 (alteration in original). That fact, the Court held, “ma[de] no difference,” because “[ejngaging in a commercial act does not require the receipt of fair value, or even compliance with the common-law requirements of consideration.” Id. Applying this understanding, courts have found that non-profit organizations can engage in commercial activity. See, e.g., Malewicz v. City of Amsterdam, 362 F.Supp.2d 298, 314 (D.D.C.2005) (holding that the loan of artwork by a Dutch nonprofit museum to non-profit museums in the United States constitutes commercial activity, because exchanging artwork is an activity in which private individuals can engage, sometimes for profit).
In sum, a foreign state engages in commercial activity when it engages in acts that any private citizen has the power to undertake, regardless of the state’s motive or the possibility of making a profit therefrom. Applying the Weltover definition of “commercial activity,” this Circuit has repeatedly held that an employment relationship between a foreign sovereign and its employee constitutes commercial activity, so long as the employee is not a civil service, diplomatic, or military employee. In Holden v. Canadian Consulate, 92 F.3d 918 (9th Cir.1996), for example, a former “Commercial Officer” in the “Trade and Investment Section” of the Canadian Consulate in San Francisco brought an action alleging that the Canadian government illegally discriminated against her on the basis of sex and age. Id. at 919-20. Examining the FSIA’s legislative history, we noted that the House Report listed “the employment of diplomatic, civil service, or military personnel ... by the Foreign state in the United States” as examples of acts that are “public or governmental and not commercial in nature.” Id. at 921 (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 94-1487, at 16, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News at 6615). In contrast, the “employment or engagement of [such other employees as] laborers, clerical staff or public relations or marketing agents would be ... included within the definition of commercial activity.” Id. (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 94-1487, at 16, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News at 6615). Based on this legislative history, we held that employment “of diplomatic, civil service or military personnel is governmental and the employment of other personnel is commercial.” Id.
We applied the Holden standard to the hiring of a domestic servant for a diplomat’s residence in Park v. Shin, 313 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir.2002). Park brought an action against the Deputy Consul General of the Korean Consulate in San Francisco, alleging that during her tenure as a domestic servant in the Deputy Consul General’s home, the Deputy Consul General *1091withheld her pay, denied her medical care, and confiscated her passport. Id. at 1140-41. We held that the commercial activity exception applied because “[t]he act of hiring a domestic servant is not an inherently public act that only a government could perform.” Id. at 1145. Because the plaintiffs claims were based on an employment relationship with the defendant, the defendant was not entitled to sovereign immunity. Id.
B. The employment relationship between Ronan and the Holy See
Under this understanding of the phrase “commercial activity,” Doe’s negligence claims without doubt come within the commercial activity exception.
Doe’s amended complaint explains that the Holy See has both “ecclesiastical” and “governmental” functions. In its governmental role, the Holy See undertakes certain functions that are undoubtedly sovereign. It maintains a volunteer military to defend the territory of Vatican City, over which it has complete control; it may enact laws with domestic effect and enter into international treaties and compacts with other nations; and it sends and receives diplomatic representatives to and from other states.2 Under the analysis we set forth in Holden, had Ronan been employed to perform any of these “diplomatic, civil service, or military” functions, his employment by the Vatican would have fallen outside the FSIA’s commercial activity exception. 92 F.3d at 921.
But, on the allegations in the complaint, Ronan was not a civil service, diplomatic, or military employee-the types of employees that only sovereign states can employ. Nor is there any evidence that Ronan was “privy to any governmental policy deliberations” or that he engaged in “legislative work” on behalf of the Holy See. Id. at 922. Rather, the Holy See hired Ronan to perform ecclesiastical and parochial services-to provide “religious and pastoral guidance, education and counseling services” to the Church’s faithful. Providing religious, educational, and counseling services is not a peculiarly governmental function; it is something that non-governmental employers can do.
To reach this conclusion, I do not rely at all on the consideration that “churches receive financial support from their parishioners.” Maj. Op. at 1075. The fact that Ronan’s provision of pastoral services coincides with and depends upon his parishioners giving donations is neither necessary nor sufficient to show that the Holy See’s employment of Ronan is a commercial activity under Weltover’s nature-not-purpose test. Weltover, 504 U.S. at 614, 112 S.Ct. 2160. Instead, the critical factor in the commercial activity analysis in this case is that the Holy See’s employment activities alleged in Doe’s complaint are not distinctly sovereign in nature — that they are the sort of functions that private parties, not just sovereign governments, can perform. See Holden, 92 F.3d at 921. So approached, the application of the FSIA commercial activity exception to Doe’s complaint is not an “arcane question,” see Maj. Op. at 1075, but a straightforward matter of applying our own binding case law.
I recognize that the Holy See’s dual role as not only a sovereign government but also the head of a worldwide church gives this case a peculiar complexion. But that sense of oddity comes about because the Holy See is a sovereign of a very unusual kind. Both in physical size and number of inhabitants, the land it governs is tiny. Its *1092role as a traditional, sovereign government entity is correspondingly small, when compared to its role in running an extremely large international religious organization.
The fact that the Holy See is unique among sovereigns in this respect does not, however, necessitate deviating from the rules we normally follow in construing and applying the FSIA. The operation of a huge international religious institution is a large task, and one of great importance to many people. But it is not an activity that may be undertaken only by sovereign states, which is the focus of the FSIA’s commercial activity exception. Indeed, in most cases it is non-governmental entities, not governments, that operate international religious institutions, the Mormon Church and the Greek Orthodox Church being two prominent examples. The FSIA’s purpose is not to insulate religious institutions from suit; it juxtaposes commercial activities not to religious activities, but to governmental activities. The Holy See differs from other foreign states in the nature of the non-sovereign activities it carries out and, in all likelihood, in the ratio of its non-sovereign activities to its sovereign activities. But it is like other sovereigns in the respect essential here: It engages in a range of non-sovereign activities in the United States, and the FSIA’s commercial activity exception lifts the shield of immunity from such non-sovereign activities.
The district court nonetheless expressed discomfort with characterizing the Holy See’s employment of Ronan as “commercial” activity for FSIA purposes, observing that the Holy See’s employment of clergy is “widely viewed as the antithesis of com-merciality.” Doe, 434 F.Supp.2d at 941. Commerciality and religiosity are, indeed, often viewed as antithetical categories. But, as I have explained, the FSIA’s “commercial activity” phrase, as it has been interpreted in the case law, is a term of art, not reliant on common usage, which reflects the special concerns of a sovereign immunity statute. The district court’s discomfort notwithstanding, under well-established FSIA principles and our own binding ease law the employment relationship that existed between Ronan and the Holy See does constitute “commercial activity of a foreign state.”
C. Doe’s negligence claims are “based upon” commercial activity
Under the FSIA’s commercial activity exception, it is not enough for the plaintiff to show that the defendant engaged in something that qualifies as a commercial activity under the Weltover test. The plaintiff must also show that his cause of action is related to that commercial activity in one of three ways, depending upon the geographical location where the activity occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2). In Clause 1 of § 1605(a)(2), the FSIA requires that if the foreign state’s commercial activity is carried on inside the United States, the plaintiffs cause of action must be “based upon” that activity itself. Alternatively, if the commercial activity is not carried on inside the United States, the plaintiffs cause of action must be “[based] upon” an act performed inside the United States in connection with the commercial activity elsewhere, id. [Clause 2], or else “[based] upon” an act performed outside the United States in connection with commercial activity elsewhere that causes a “direct effect” in the United States. Id. [Clause 3], Doe asserts that his claims may go forward under either Clause 1 or Clause 3 of the commercial activity exception.
Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 113 S.Ct. 1471, 123 L.Ed.2d 47 (1993), provides the leading interpretation of the FSIA’s “based upon” requirement. Nelson explained that “[i]n denoting conduct *1093that forms the ‘basis,’ or ‘foundation,’ for a claim, the phrase is read most naturally to mean those elements of a claim that, if proven, would entitle a plaintiff to relief under his theory of the case.” Id. at 357, 118 S.Ct. 1471 (internal citations omitted). As the district court here correctly noted, “[t]he commercial activity must do more than lead to the injuries plaintiff suffered”; it must be “involved in proving” one of the elements of plaintiffs cause of action. Doe, 434 F.Supp.2d at 943 (quoting Sun v. Taiwan, 201 F.3d 1105, 1110 (9th Cir.2000)) (internal quotations omitted).
Applying this standard, I would hold that Doe’s negligence claims were “based upon” the Holy See’s employment of Ro-nan within the meaning of the statute. The existence of that employment relationship is a necessary element of at least the negligent retention and supervision claims. See Chesterman v. Barmon, 82 Or.App. 1, 4, 727 P.2d 130 (1986) (in assessing whether plaintiff had sufficiently alleged a negligent retention claim, requiring that the individual who caused the harm be an “employee” of defendant). See also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 317 (“A master is under a duty to exercise reasonable care so to control his servant.”)3; accord DiPietro v. Lighthouse Ministries, 159 Ohio App.3d 766, 772, 825 N.E.2d 630 (2005) (holding that “[i]n order to prevail on a claim of negligent retention, plaintiff must establish ... the existence of an employment relationship”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Because Ronan’s activities pursuant to the employment relationship occurred inside the United States, it may be that Clause 1 of the FSIA’s commercial activity provision is satisfied: Arguably, the Holy See’s alleged negligent acts were “based on” an employment relationship that, at least in part, was “carried on in the United States,” as well as in Rome. 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2) [Clause 1]. Whether or not Clause 1 applies, however, I think it quite clear that jurisdiction arises under § 1605(a)(2)’s Clause 3, regarding acts performed outside U.S. territory in connection with a foreign state’s commercial activity that have a “direct effect” inside the United States. Id. [Clause 3].
Doe alleges that the Holy See participated in the decision to retain and reassign Ronan rather than terminating his employment, an act that we can infer was taken outside the United States in connection with Ronan’s employment, and that had a direct effect in the United States-Ronan’s ability to carry out his molestation of Doe. Taking his allegations as true, Doe has satisfied Clause 3 as to his negligent supervision and retention claims.
Determining whether Doe’s “failure to warn” claim is based upon the alleged employment relationship requires looking to Oregon’s “failure to warn” case law, of which there is relatively little. In general, under Oregon law, a defendant is not liable for a negligent omission that leads to a plaintiff being harmed by a third party unless the defendant has a “special relationship” either to the third party or to the plaintiff. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 302 cmt. a. Such a special relationship may exist if, for example, the defendant “has brought into contact or association with the other a person whom the actor knows or should know to be peculiarly likely to commit intentional misconduct.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 302B cmt. e(D); cf. Brown v. Washington County, 163 Or.App. 362, 987 P.2d 1254 (1999) (holding that defendant could be *1094held liable for failure to warn about the dangerousness of an inmate within its custody).
According to Doe’s complaint, it was the Holy See’s continued employment of Ro-nan in a position of authority that led to Doe’s contact with Ronan, and thus to the Holy See’s duty to warn Doe and the other parishioners about Ronan’s abusive past and potential future dangerousness. So Doe’s negligent failure to warn claim is also “based upon” a commercial activity, in that it is the result of non-sovereign actions undertaken elsewhere — the decision not to warn about an employee’s dangerousness-with a “direct effect” in the United States. § 1605(a)(2) [Clause 3]. I would therefore hold that the district court has jurisdiction to decide it.
D. The “essence” of Doe’s claims
Although the district court determined, as I would, that Doe’s allegations satisfied the requirements of the commercial activity exception, it ultimately held the commercial activity exception inapplicable. See Doe, 434 F.Supp.2d at 941-42. It did so because, following what it considered to be “the overarching principle in Nelson, ” it concluded that it could not “fairly characterize[] [the activities described in the complaint] as commercial.” Id. at 947. Rather, it explained that “at the heart of plaintiff’s complaint is the injury inflicted by a sexually abusive priest at plaintiffs church, a claim clearly sounding in tort.” Id. at 942. On the district court’s reading of Nelson, if the “essence” of a plaintiffs complaint sounds in tort, id., the plaintiffs claims can proceed only under the FSIA’s tortious act exception, or not at all.
The Sixth Circuit recently came to a similar conclusion in O’Bryan v. Holy See, 556 F.3d 361 (6th Cir.2009). O’Bryan held that, because the “true essence” or “gravamen” of the wrongful activities alleged in the plaintiffs complaint sounded like torts, the court could exercise jurisdiction over the Holy See only through the FSIA’s tortious act exception. O’Bryan, 556 F.3d at 379-81, 385-87, 2009 WL 305342, at *11-12, 16-17. It therefore held the commercial activity exception inapplicable to the Holy See’s employment activities.
I disagree that the arguably tortious “essence” of Doe’s claims renders the commercial activity exception unavailable to him. Nothing in the FSIA suggests that the commercial activity exception and the tortious act exception are mutually exclusive and cannot possibly apply to the same conduct. Nor does Nelson, or any other controlling case, authorize reading such a requirement into the statute.
In Nelson, the plaintiff entered into an employment contract in the United States with a Saudi Arabian hospital operated by the government of Saudi Arabia. 507 U.S. at 351-52, 113 S.Ct. 1471. He then moved to Saudi Arabia, where he worked as an engineer for the hospital. Id. at 352, 113 S.Ct. 1471. After he reported several safety violations to his superiors, he was arrested by the Saudi national police, imprisoned, and tortured. Id. at 352-53, 113 S.Ct. 1471. He sued in U.S. federal court, alleging several intentional tort causes of action based on his imprisonment and torture, as well as a claim regarding the hospital’s negligent failure to warn him, during the contract negotiations in the United States, that he would be subject to imprisonment and torture if he reported safety violations. Id. at 353-54, 113 S.Ct. 1471. He argued that there was jurisdiction over his claims under the first clause of the commercial activity exception.
The Supreme Court concluded that there was no jurisdiction over any of his causes of action. His intentional tort claims could not proceed under the commercial activity exception because “a foreign state’s exercise of the power of its *1095police” is an act “which is peculiarly sovereign in nature,” and therefore not “commercial” within the meaning of the FSIA. Id. at 361, 113 S.Ct. 1471. As to the “failure to warn” claim, the Court concluded that the plaintiff could not meet the statute’s requirement that his claim be “based upon the commercial activity” of Saudi Arabia merely by phrasing his claim in terms of the contract negotiations in the United States during which the failure to warn allegedly occurred. “[A] plaintiff could recast virtually any claim of intentional tort committed by sovereign act as a claim of failure to warn.... To give jurisdictional significance to this feint of language would effectively thwart the Act’s manifest purpose.” Id. at 363, 113 S.Ct. 1471.
In analyzing the failure to warn claim, then, Nelson simply applied the general principle that the court does not accept a plaintiffs miseharacterization of the legal significance of the facts he has alleged, but will look “beyond the complaint’s characterization to the conduct on which the claim is based.” Blaxland v. Commonwealth Dir. of Pub. Prosecutions, 323 F.3d 1198, 1203 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Mt. Homes, Inc. v. United States, 912 F.2d 352, 356 (9th Cir.1990)).4
Here, unlike in Nelson, Doe’s negligent retention, supervision, and failure to warn claims are not simply a “feint of language” to obtain jurisdiction through the commercial activity exception. Nelson, 507 U.S. at 363, 113 S.Ct. 1471. Doe has alleged that the Holy See continued to employee Ro-nan, and placed him in the Archdiocese where he molested Doe, even after the Holy See was aware that Ronan had molested young boys on at least two prior occasions while in its employ. He has alleged further that the Holy See did not inform Doe or his parents of what it knew about Ronan’s dangerousness, despite its position of trust with respect to Doe and its employment relationship with Ronan. Doe’s negligence claims are not a mischar-acterization of the factual allegations he has made, but are in fact among the central wrongs he alleges.5
*1096In summary, I see no reason why claims arising from actions with an arguably tor-tious “essence” cannot proceed under the commercial activity exception. As noted above, the phrase “commercial activity” in the FSIA is a term of art. Neither the statute, nor any controlling case, requires the conclusion that the commercial activity exception is necessarily inapplicable whenever the label “tort” would be, in common usage, a better description of the harms a plaintiff alleges.
E. The Holy See’s First Amendment argument
The Holy See contends that reading the FSIA to allow federal jurisdiction over Doe’s claims via the commercial activity exception would violate the First Amendment, because adjudicating the case will require the judicial interpretation of such religious doctrine as the vow of obedience that members of the clergy offer to the Pope. This contention cannot get off the ground because, as a foreign sovereign, the Holy See has no rights under the First Amendment.6
Neither we nor the Supreme Court have previously addressed whether foreign sovereigns enjoy the benefit of any rights under the Constitution of the United States. Cf. Weltover, 504 U.S. at 619, 112 5.Ct. 2160 (leaving open the question whether foreign states enjoy rights under the due process clause). The D.C. Circuit, however, has concluded that foreign sovereigns are not entitled to rights under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, and much of its reasoning on that question is relevant here. See Price v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 294 F.3d 82, 96 (D.C.Cir.2002).
The D.C. Circuit explained that foreign sovereign nations are not members of the political community for whose benefit the Bill of Rights was adopted. They “are entirely alien to our constitutional system,” id, and so the protections to which they are entitled have traditionally been governed not by domestic constitutional law, but by international law. Id. at 97; see also Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi 292 U.S. 313, 330, 54 S.Ct. 745, 78 L.Ed. 1282 (1934) (foreign sovereigns are “outside the structure of the Union.”). Unlike private individuals, “sovereign states interact with each other through diplomacy and even coercion in ways not affected by constitutional protections.” Nat’l Council of Resistance of Iran v. Dep’t of State, 251 F.3d 192, 202 (D.C.Cir.2001). They also have recourse to international dispute-resolution mechanisms to which private individuals have no access. Indeed, the FSIA is in part a recognition that grievances against foreign states are sometimes better resolved in these other arenas, not in U.S. courts. In this context, there seems no basis for extending constitutional protections to foreign states in their capacity as such. Accord O’Bryan v. Holy See, 471 F.Supp.2d 784, 794 (W.D.Ky.2007) (the “Holy See cannot simultaneously seek the protections of the FSIA and the United States Constitution.”).
In addition, as the D.C. Circuit observed in Price, “serious practical problems might arise were we to hold that foreign states may cloak themselves in the protections of the” Constitution. Price, 294 F.3d at 99. It would be thoroughly anomalous to permit the executive branch to be constrained in its conduct of foreign relations by assertions by foreign sovereigns of entitlement to the protections of the First Amendment. I would therefore reject the Holy See’s contention that foreign sovereigns have *1097First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, holding that the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction over Doe’s claims presents no First Amendment concerns.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the district court’s judgment, holding that the FSIA’s commercial activity exception permits it to exercise jurisdiction over Doe’s non-fraud negligence claims.
. The discretionary function exclusion, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5)(A), and the misrepresentation exclusion, id. § 1605(a)(5)(B), only provide foreign states and their instrumentalities a safe harbor from the FSIA’s tortious act exception, not from the commercial activity exception. See Export Group v. Reef Indus., Inc., 54 F.3d 1466, 1477 (9th Cir.1995).
. See U.S. Dep't of State, Background Note: Holy See, July 2008, http://www.state.gOv/r/ pa/ei/bgn/3819.htm. Although these facts are not mentioned in the complaint, I take judicial notice of them pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 201(b).
. I rely on the Restatement (Second) of Torts as evidence of Oregon law because it is frequently relied on by the Oregon Supreme Court in negligence cases. See, e.g., Wallach v. Allstate Ins. Co., 344 Or. 314, 320, 180 P.3d 19 (2008); Bailey v. Lewis Farm, Inc., 343 Or. 276, 285, 171 P.3d 336 (2007).
. For example, if a plaintiff has alleged conduct that clearly amounts to false arrest, but has called his claim one for "false imprisonment,” the court will not simply accept that latter characterization. Blaxland, 323 F.3d at 1204-06.
. Nor does our decision in Randolph v. Budget Rent-A-Car, 97 F.3d 319 (9th Cir.1996), require any different result. Randolph concerned a Saudi student trainee studying in the United States on a scholarship from Saudia airlines, an instrumentality of the Saudi government. Id. at 327. While living in this country, the student "negligently crashed his rented automobile into John Randolph’s motorcycle.” Id. at 323. We held that Randolph’s respondeat superior claims against Saudia could not come within the tortious act exception to the FSIA because the student was not an "employee” of Saudia. Id. at 325-29. Addressing the commercial activity exception, we concluded that the lack of an employment relationship meant that the allegations simply had no nexus to any commercial activity of Saudia: “[N]ot only must the activity be commercial in nature, but the commercial activity must cause the harm alleged .... The specific acts of which plaintiff complains did not arise out of Saudia’s commercial activity in the United States.” Id. at 324.
We also observed that "plaintiffs’ personal injury lawsuit sounds in tort and centers on the non-commercial negligence of a purported employee.” Id. This observation, however, must be considered in the context of the conclusion that there was no employment relationship between Saudia and the student. In the absence of such a connection, there was only the tort of negligent driving by a student unconnected to Saudia, and no “commercial activity.” In this case, in contrast, Doe has clearly alleged an employment relationship between the Holy See and Ronan and a nexus between the employment relationship and the harm he suffered. That relationship supplies the commercial activity missing in Randolph.
. The Archdiocese, the Catholic Bishop, and the Order, which are not foreign sovereigns and are residents of the United States, are, of course, entitled to First Amendment protections.