Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T14:23:11.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

U.S. Supreme Court Holds that a Provision of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Does Not Lift Immunity from Attachment of Iranian Artifacts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2018

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The U.S. Supreme Court recently held unanimously that § 1610(g) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) does not lift the immunity from attachment of certain artifacts belonging to Iran. The case, Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, stemmed from the petitioners’ attempt to satisfy a prior judgment against Iran for injuries sustained in Hamas suicide bombings in Jerusalem in 1997.

Type
State Jurisdiction and Immunity
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 112 , Issue 3 , July 2018 , pp. 496 - 499
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by The American Society of International Law 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 538 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 816, 827 (2018). Justice Kagan did not participate in the decision. Id. at 827.

2 Id. at 820–21. In 2003, a federal district court granted a default judgment against Iran under the prior state-sponsored terrorism exception to the FSIA's establishment of jurisdictional immunity. Campuzano v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 281 F. Supp. 2d 258, 260, 269–70 (D.D.C. 2003). The court subsequently granted the petitioners’ motion to convert the judgment to one under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, a more expansive exception to immunity for state-sponsored terrorism passed by Congress in 2008. 563 F. Supp. 2d 38, 39 n.3 (D.D.C. 2008). As part of their lengthy attempt to satisfy the judgment, petitioners sought to attach the artifacts at issue in this case. See Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Islam, 830 F.3d 470, 474–75 (7th Cir. 2016) (describing the procedural history).

3 Rubin, 138 S. Ct. at 820–21 (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1604, 1609).

4 Id. at 819–21.

5 Id. at 821.

6 28 U.S.C. § 1610.

7 28 U.S.C. § 1610(a).

8 Rubin, 830 F.3d at 479 (rejecting arguments that “a third party's commercial use of the property triggers § 1610(a)” and also expressing skepticism that “the University's academic study of the Persepolis Collection counts as a commercial use”); see also 137 S. Ct. 2326 (2017) (granting certiorari only with respect to the interpretation of § 1610(g)).

9 28 U.S.C. § 1610(g)(1).

10 Rubin, 138 S. Ct. at 824.

11 Id. at 823.

12 First Nat. City Bank v. Banco Para el Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611, 628 (1983).

13 Rubin, 138 S. Ct. at 823.

14 Id.

15 28 U.S.C. § 1610(g)(1); Rubin, 138 S. Ct. at 823.

16 Rubin, 138 S. Ct. at 823.

17 Id. at 823–25.

18 Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents, Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran at 31–32, 538 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 816 (2018) (No. 16-534).

19 Rubin, 138 S. Ct. at 825.