Supreme Court upholds Iran reparations law; dissent sees separation of powers violation
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a law that allows victims of Iran-sponsored terrorism to satisfy unpaid judgments with assets held in New York by the Iran’s central bank.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law in a 6-2 decision (PDF) that found no violation of the separation of powers. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. dissented in an opinion joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Bank Markazi had contended the law was unconstitutional because it made particular assets available to satisfy judgments in a single, consolidated proceeding, even identifying the caption and docket number. According to the bank, the law effectively directed certain findings and specified the outcome.
The majority opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed. “We perceive [in the law] no violation of separation-of-powers principles and no threat to the independence of the judiciary,” Ginsburg wrote.
Laws can apply retroactively to pending civil cases, Ginsburg said. Here, she wrote, the law “provides a new standard clarifying that, if Iran owns certain assets, the victims of Iran-sponsored terrorist attacks will be permitted to execute against those assets. Applying laws implementing Congress’ policy judgments, with fidelity to those judgments, is commonplace for the judiciary.”
Although the law applies to a consolidated case, it affects more than 1,000 terrorism victims in 16 lawsuits, Ginsburg said. She also stressed that the law was passed to further foreign policy objectives.
In his dissent, Roberts said Article III gives the power to decide cases only to the judiciary. Yet the statute upheld by the majority eliminates Bank Markazi’s arguments against use of its assets to satisfy the judgments, Roberts said.
“No less than if it had passed a law saying ‘respondents win,’ Congress has decided this case by enacting a bespoke statute tailored to his case that resolves the parties’ specific legal disputes to guarantee respondents victory,” Roberts wrote.
The case is Bank Markazi v. Peterson.
