Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran

Background

A group of United States citizens who were wounded in, or are relatives of victims of, a 1997 Hamas suicide bombing sued Iran and obtained a default money judgment of about $71.5 million. When Iran did not pay, the judgment holders sought to attach and execute against Iranian assets in the United States, including about 30,000 ancient clay tablets and fragments known as the Persepolis Collection, which Iran had loaned to the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute after excavations in the 1930s. The District Court rejected the attempt to seize those artifacts under 28 U.S.C. §1610(g), and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether §1610(g) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (added in 2008) by itself strips property immunity for enforcement of terrorism judgments. The Court held no: the phrase “as provided in this section” means §1610(g) applies only when the property’s immunity already is withdrawn by some other provision in §1610. Congress incorporated the five Bancec factors into §1610(g), so §1610(g) removes that particular barrier but does not create a standalone waiver. The Court relied on the text (noting the absence of phrases like “shall not be immune” or “notwithstanding any other provision of law”) and on FSIA’s long focus on commercial-activity exceptions.

Real world impact

The decision requires holders of terrorism judgments to identify an existing §1610 exception (for example, commercial-activity rules or TRIA-style provisions) before they may attach or execute against a foreign state’s property. As applied here, the Persepolis artifacts remain immune because petitioners did not show any separate §1610 waiver. At the same time, §1610(g) does make clear that the Bancec separateness presumption no longer bars enforcement when another §1610 exception applies.