SCOTUS Briefs

2006 Supreme Court term

THE PERMANENT MISSION OF INDIA TO THE UNITED NATIONS, ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK.

Dockets 06-134Argued
Argued
April 24, 2007
AI-generated independent summary

This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.

In brief

Overview

Guide pending. Verified case metadata and available source documents are shown below while a supported explanation is prepared.

Background and question before the Court

According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts opened the oral argument for case 06‑134, The Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations et al. v. City of New York.

According to John J.P. Howley, the case involves tax‑enforcement lawsuits; if jurisdiction exists, the court would decide only whether a tax is owed.

According to Justice Scalia, justices asked whether the issue falls within the property‑right exception.

According to Justice Ginsburg, justices asked whether the lien is an interest in land that runs with the land.

Chief Justice Roberts asked whether the dispute is a question of state law or federal law.

According to Justice Breyer, justices questioned the distinction between a mortgage and a tax lien.

Justice Scalia asked whether, under the respondent’s theory, the lien would be unenforceable.

The respondent argued that a lien is a form of intangible personal property—a claim against the property.

According to Respondent, the respondent noted that the inability to foreclose does not eliminate a property right in the lien.

Justice Kennedy raised the issue of easements and asked how they relate to property rights.

Justice Souter asked whether a claim in immovable property is required for a property‑right dispute.

According to Mr. Cardozo, mr. Cardozo, speaking for the petitioner, said the lien could wipe out the value of the property, making the property‑right claim critical.

What each side argues

Petitioner (The Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations)

According to John J.P. Howley, petitioner argues that the lien is not a property right within the scope of Section 1605(a)(4) and that the core issue is whether a tax is owed.

According to Mr. Cardozo, petitioner (via Mr. Cardozo) contends that the lien could wipe out the value of their property, making the property‑right claim significant.

Respondent (City of New York)

Respondent asserts that a tax lien is a form of intangible personal property—a claim against the property.

Respondent maintains that even if foreclosing is not possible, the lien still represents a property right.

What happened at oral argument

Chief Justice Roberts asked whether the dispute is a question of state law or federal law.

Justice Scalia asked whether the lien falls within the property‑right exception.

Justice Ginsburg asked whether the lien is an interest in land that runs with the land.

Justice Breyer asked for the distinction between a mortgage and a tax lien.

Justice Scalia asked whether, under the respondent’s theory, the lien would be unenforceable.

According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy raised the question of easements and their relation to property rights.

Justice Souter asked whether a claim in immovable property is required for a property‑right dispute.

According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy noted that under New York law a tax lien becomes a lien against the property before any judicial proceeding.

What the Court decided

Pending This section will be added when the relevant Court material is available.

Why it matters

Source-limited The available primary sources do not support a complete explanation yet.

Terms to know

No glossary terms are available for this guide.

Primary sources

Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.

  • a9f5717006ef71bbe40f-r1-dab354da5bab5bf1.pdforal argument transcript
    Archived copy

Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.