Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran
7th Cir. 2016); cert
. granted, 137 S. Ct. 2326 (2017).
Holding
Section 1610(g) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not provide a freestanding basis for parties holding a judgment under § 1605A to attach and execute against the property of a foreign state; rather, for § 1610(g) to apply, the immunity of the property at issue must be rescinded under a separate provision within § 1610. Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch
Case opinion
MajoritySotomayor, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Gorsuch
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
28 U.S.C. § 1604, et seq. (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act)

Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), was a

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, nations cannot typically be sued unless the state can be proved to have provided support for terrorists or acts of terrorism.[2]
After a district judge ruled Iran owed $71.5 million to the families of the victims, the families brought several cases to court in an attempt to attach and execute on assets owned by the state of Iran located in the United States.

Under subsections (a) and (g) of 28 U.S.C. § 1610, attachment and execution on the property of a foreign state is permissible provided that it is being used for "a commercial activity in the United States".

Field Museum (both of whom were sued by Rubin et al.) were not in use by the state of Iran, and therefore could not be executed upon, as ruled by both the district court and Seventh Circuit. A unanimous (Kagan did not participate) opinion was delivered by Justice Sotomayor
upholding the judgment that the ancient artifacts cannot be seized, ruling that exceptions to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act did not apply in this case.

The United States filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Iran, writing: "The property at issue here consists of ancient Persian artifacts, documenting a unique aspect of Iran's cultural heritage, that were lent to a U.S. institution in the 1930s for academic study....Execution against such unique cultural artifacts could cause affront and reciprocity problems."[4][5]

See also

References

  1. ^ "Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran". April 5, 2018. Retrieved April 5, 2018.
  2. ^ "Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran". Harvard Law Review. December 9, 2016. Retrieved April 5, 2018.
  3. ^ 28 U.S.C. § 1610
  4. ^ Liptak, Adam (February 21, 2018). "Supreme Court Rules on Terrorism, Whistle-Blowers and Prisoners". The New York Times. Retrieved April 6, 2018.
  5. ^ "BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENTS" (PDF).

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rubin_v._Islamic_Republic_of_Iran&oldid=1215578565"