__ U.S. __ (2016), 14-770, Bank Markazi v. Peterson
|Citation:||__ U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 1310, 194 L.Ed.2d 463, 84 U.S.L.W. 4222|
|Opinion Judge:||GINSBURG, JUSTICE|
|Party Name:||BANK MARKAZI, AKA THE CENTRAL BANK OF IRAN, PETITIONER v. DEBORAH PETERSON, ET AL|
|Judge Panel:||GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY, BREYER, ALITO, and KAGAN, JJ., joined, and in all but Part II-C of which THOMAS, J., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR joins, di...|
|Case Date:||April 20, 2016|
|Court:||United States Supreme Court|
American nationals may seek damages from state sponsors of terrorism in U.S. courts, 28 U.S.C. 1605A, but face difficulties enforcing their judgments. Concerned with specific terrorism cases, Congress enacted the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, making designated assets available to satisfy judgments underlying a consolidated enforcement proceeding (identified by docket... (see full summary)
[136 S.Ct. 1313] Argued: January 13, 2016
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
[136 S.Ct. 1314] [194 L.Ed.2d 471] American nationals may seek money damages from state sponsors of terrorism in the courts of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605A. Prevailing plaintiffs, however, often face practical and legal difficulties enforcing their judgments. To place beyond dispute the availability of certain assets for satisfaction of judgments rendered in terrorism cases against Iran, Congress enacted the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012. As relevant here, the Act makes a designated set of assets available to satisfy the judgments underlying a consolidated enforcement proceeding which the statute identifies by the District Court's docket number. 22 U.S.C. § 8772. Section 8772(a)(2) requires a court, before allowing execution against these assets, to determine, [136 S.Ct. 1315] inter alia, " whether Iran holds equitable title to, or the beneficial interest in, the assets."
Respondents -- more than 1,000 victims of Iran-sponsored acts of terrorism, their estate representatives, and surviving family members -- rank within 16 discrete groups, each of which brought suit against Iran. To enforce judgments they obtained by default, the 16 groups moved for turnover of about $1.75 billion in bond assets held in a New York bank account--assets that, respondents alleged, were owned by Bank Markazi, the Central Bank of Iran. The turnover proceeding began in 2008. In 2012, the judgment holders updated their motions to include execution claims under § 8772. Bank Markazi maintained that § 8772 could not withstand inspection under the separation-of-powers doctrine, contending that Congress had usurped the judicial role by directing a particular result in the pending enforcement proceeding. The District Court disagreed, concluding that § 8772 permissibly changed the law applicable in a pending litigation. The Second Circuit affirmed.
Section 8772 does not violate the separation of powers. Pp. 12-24.
(a) Article III of the Constitution establishes an independent Judiciary with the " province and duty . . . to say what the law is" in particular cases and controversies. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60. Necessarily, that endowment of authority blocks Congress from " requir[ing] federal courts to exercise the judicial power in a manner that Article III forbids." Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 218, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328. Although Article III bars Congress from telling a court how to apply pre-existing law to particular circumstances, Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Soc., 503 U.S. 429, 438-439, 112 S.Ct. 1407, 118 L.Ed.2d 73, Congress may amend a law and make the amended prescription retroactively applicable in pending cases, Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 267-268, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229; United States v. Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. 103, 1 Cranch 103, 110, 2 L.Ed. 49. In United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. 128, 13 Wall. 128, 146, 20 L.Ed. 519, 7 Ct.Cl. 240, this Court enigmatically observed that Congress may not " prescribe rules of [194 L.Ed.2d 472] decision to the Judicial Department . . . in [pending] cases." More recent decisions have clarified that Klein does not inhibit Congress from " amend[ing] applicable law." Robertson, 503 U.S., at 441, 112 S.Ct. 1407, 118 L.Ed.2d 73; Plaut, 514 U.S., at 218, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328. Section 8772 does just that: It requires a court to apply a new legal standard in a pending postjudgment enforcement proceeding. No different result obtains because, as Bank Markazi argues, the outcome of applying § 8772 to the facts in the proceeding below was a " foregone conclusio[n]." Brief for Petitioner 47. A statute does not impinge on judicial power when it directs courts to apply a new legal standard to undisputed facts. See Pope v. United States, 323 U.S. 1, 11, 65 S.Ct. 16, 89 L.Ed. 3, 102 Ct.Cl. 846. Pp. 12-19.
(b) Nor is § 8772 invalid because, as Bank Markazi further objects, it prescribes a rule for a single, pending case identified by caption and docket number. The amended law upheld in Robertson also applied to cases identified in the statute by caption and docket number. 503 U.S., at 440, 112 S.Ct. 1407, 118 L.Ed.2d 73. Moreover, § 8772 is not an instruction governing one case only: It facilitates execution of judgments in 16 suits. While consolidated for administrative purposes at the execution stage, the judgment-execution claims were not independent of the original actions for damages and each retained its separate character. In any event, the Bank's argument rests on the flawed assumption that legislation must be generally applicable. See [136 S.Ct. 1316] Plaut, 514 U.S., at 239, n. 9, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328. This Court and lower courts have upheld as a valid exercise of Congress' legislative power laws governing one or a very small number of specific subjects. Pp. 19-21.
(c) Adding weight to this decision, § 8772 is an exercise of congressional authority regarding foreign affairs, a domain in which the controlling role of the political branches is both necessary and proper. Measures taken by the political branches to control the disposition of foreign-state property, including blocking specific foreign-state assets or making them available for attachment, have never been rejected as invasions upon the Article III judicial power. Cf. Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 674, 101 S.Ct. 2972, 69 L.Ed.2d 918. Notably, before enactment of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the Executive regularly made case-specific determinations whether sovereign immunity should be recognized, and courts accepted those determinations as binding. See, e.g., Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677, 689-691, 124 S.Ct. 2240, 159 L.Ed.2d 1. This practice, too, was never perceived as an encroachment on the federal courts' jurisdiction. Dames & Moore, 453 U.S., at 684-685, 101 S.Ct. 2972, 69 L.Ed.2d 918. Pp. 21-23.
758 F.3d 185, affirmed.
GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY, BREYER, ALITO, and KAGAN, JJ., joined, and in all but Part II-C of which THOMAS, J., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined.
[194 L.Ed.2d 473] GINSBURG, JUSTICE [*]
A provision of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, 22 U.S.C. § 8772, makes available for postjudgment execution a set of assets held at a New York bank for Bank Markazi, the Central Bank of Iran. The assets would partially satisfy judgments gained in separate actions by over 1,000 victims of terrorist acts sponsored by Iran. The judgments [136 S.Ct. 1317] remain unpaid. Section 8772 is an unusual statute: It designates a particular set of assets and renders them available to satisfy the liability and damages judgments underlying a consolidated enforcement proceeding that the statute identifies by the District Court's docket number. The question raised by petitioner Bank Markazi: Does § 8772 violate the separation of powers by purporting to change the law for, and directing a particular result in, a single pending case?
Section 8772, we hold, does not transgress constraints placed on Congress and the President by the Constitution. The statute, we point out, is not fairly portrayed as a " one-case-only regime." Brief for Petitioner 27. Rather, it covers a category of postjudgment execution claims filed by numerous plaintiffs who, in multiple civil actions, obtained evidence-based judgments against Iran together amounting to billions of dollars. Section 8772 subjects the designated assets to execution " to satisfy any judgment" against Iran for damages caused by specified acts of terrorism. § 8772(a)(1) (emphasis added). Congress, our decisions make clear, may amend the law and make the change applicable to pending cases, even when the amendment is outcome determinative.
Adding weight to our decision, Congress passed, and the President signed, § 8772 in furtherance of their stance on a matter of foreign policy. Action in that realm warrants respectful review by courts. The Executive has historically made case-specific sovereign-immunity determinations to which courts have deferred. And exercise by Congress and the President of control over claims against foreign...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP