Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffattachment
jurisdictionappealwillrespondentattachment

Related Cases

Mostofi v. Napolitano
View Case »
Mangaser, Matter of
View Case »
National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan
View Case »
Essential Info. v. United States Info. Agency
View Case »
Association v. Department of Education
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran

Facts

In 1997, Hamas conducted suicide bombings in Jerusalem, injuring U.S. citizens who later sued Iran, claiming it supported Hamas. They obtained a default judgment of $71.5 million against Iran. When Iran did not pay, the plaintiffs sought to attach a collection of ancient clay tablets owned by Iran but held at the University of Chicago. The District Court ruled that the property was immune from attachment under the FSIA, a decision upheld by the Seventh Circuit.

On September 4, 1997, Hamas carried out three suicide bombings on a crowded pedestrian mall in Jerusalem, resulting in the deaths of 5 people and injuring nearly 200 others. Petitioners are United States citizens who were either wounded in the attack or are the close relatives of those who were injured. In an attempt to recover for their harm, petitioners sued Iran in the District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that Iran was responsible for the bombing because it provided material support and training to Hamas.

Issue

Whether the property of a foreign state, specifically a collection of antiquities owned by Iran but held by a U.S. university, is subject to attachment and execution by U.S. citizens holding a judgment against that foreign state under the FSIA.

The issue presented in this case is whether certain property of Iran, specifically, a collection of antiquities owned by Iran but in the possession of respondent University of Chicago, is subject to attachment and execution by petitioners in satisfaction of that judgment.

Rule

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) grants foreign states immunity from suit and their property immunity from attachment and execution, with certain exceptions. Section 1610(g) identifies property that may be subject to attachment but does not itself divest property of immunity unless exempted under other provisions of the FSIA.

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) grants foreign states and their agencies and instrumentalities immunity from suit in the United States (called jurisdictional immunity) and grants their property immunity from attachment and execution in satisfaction of judgments against them.

Analysis

The Court analyzed the language of v10(g) and concluded that it does not provide a freestanding basis for attaching foreign state property. Instead, it serves to identify property that may be available for attachment only if that property is already exempt from immunity under other provisions of the FSIA. The Court agreed with the Seventh Circuit that the plaintiffs could not attach the antiquities because they had not established that the property was exempt from immunity.

We disagree. Section 1610(g) serves to identify property that will be available for attachment and execution in satisfaction of a v05A judgment, but it does not in itself divest property of immunity. Rather, the provisions language 'as provided in this section' shows that v10(g) operates only when the property at issue is exempt from immunity as provided elsewhere in v10.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the Seventh Circuit's ruling, concluding that the plaintiffs could not execute their judgment against the Iranian property held in the U.S. because the property retained its immunity under the FSIA.

We agree with the conclusion of the Seventh Circuit, and therefore affirm.

Who won?

The Islamic Republic of Iran prevailed in the case because the Court upheld the interpretation of the FSIA that protects foreign state property from attachment unless explicitly exempted.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. 830 F. 3d 470 (2016) . As relevant, the Seventh Circuit held that the text of v10(g) demonstrates that the provision serves to identify the property of a foreign state or its agencies or instrumentalities that are subject to attachment and execution, but it does not in itself divest that property of immunity.

You must be