Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States
Headline: Court allows U.S. criminal prosecution of a foreign state-owned bank, ruling the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not block criminal charges and preserves federal criminal jurisdiction.
Holding: The Court held that federal courts have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §3231 to prosecute a foreign state–owned bank and that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not provide immunity from criminal prosecution.
- Allows U.S. prosecutors to bring criminal charges against foreign state–owned banks.
- Prevents the FSIA from being used as a blanket shield in criminal cases.
- Leaves common-law immunity questions to lower courts, creating future litigation and uncertainty.
Summary
Background
A bank majority-owned by the Republic of Turkey was indicted in the Southern District of New York for allegedly taking part in a multi-year scheme to evade U.S. economic sanctions on Iran. Two individuals connected to the case were already convicted, and other defendants remain at large. The bank asked a federal court to dismiss the criminal case, arguing that (1) the general criminal jurisdiction statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3231, does not reach foreign-state instrumentalities and (2) the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) shields it from prosecution.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court first held that § 3231’s broad wording covers “all offenses against the laws of the United States,” so federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear the prosecution. The Court then explained that the FSIA is a statute focused on civil lawsuits (it sets rules about civil venue, removal, service, and civil remedies) and is silent about criminal prosecutions. Reading the Act as a whole, the Court concluded the FSIA does not grant immunity from criminal prosecution and therefore cannot block the indictment. The Court vacated and remanded the parts of the lower-court judgment that raised separate common-law immunity questions for further consideration.
Real world impact
The decision allows the federal criminal case against the Turkish state–owned bank to proceed and clarifies that FSIA protections govern civil suits, not criminal prosecutions. The Court noted that if national-security or foreign-policy concerns remain, Congress or the President could act to change the law.
Dissents or concurrances
A separate opinion (Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito) disagreed in part and argued the FSIA should control here and that the commercial-activity exception makes the suit permissible; that opinion would have applied the FSIA rather than send common-law issues back to the lower court.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?