Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran

Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 4, 2017
Decided February 21, 2018
Full case nameJenny Rubin, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Docket no.16-534
Citations583 U.S. ___ (more)
138 S. Ct. 816; 200 L. Ed. 2d 58
Case history
Prior830 F.3d 470 (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against the property of a foreign state; rather, for § 1610(g) to apply, the immunity of the property at issue must be rescinded under a separate provision within § 1610.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 United States Supreme Court case brought against the state of Iran by the families of American victims of the Ben Yehuda Street bombings which occurred in September 1997.[1] Under the 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".[3] However, the items in question in this particular case—ancient Persian artifacts held for study by the University of Chicago Oriental Institute and the 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]

  1. ^ "Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran". April 5, 2018. Archived from the original on March 8, 2021. Retrieved April 5, 2018.
  2. ^ "Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran". Harvard Law Review. December 9, 2016. Archived from the original on November 5, 2021. 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. Archived from the original on November 9, 2020. Retrieved April 6, 2018.
  5. ^ "BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENTS" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on January 20, 2022. Retrieved October 9, 2018.