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
Petitioners argue that the President, using express statutory authority, made terrorism‑related provisions inapplicable to Iraq, removing those provisions of law that previously applied to countries sponsoring terrorism.
According to Petitioners, they further contend that because section 1605(a)(7) was rendered inapplicable to Iraq, it cannot serve as a basis for abrogating Iraq’s foreign sovereign immunity or establishing subject‑matter jurisdiction.
According to United States (amicus curiae), the United States, as amicus curiae, maintains that the President’s authority under EWSAA section 1503 to make such provisions inapplicable to Iraq is clear and entitled to deference.
Plaintiffs argue that despite the removal of terrorism‑sponsor status, they are not left without any remedy and should be treated like other claimants against a foreign state.
Background and question before the Court
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the emergency suspension of Iraq’s immunity, which had a one‑year sunset, means that immunity revived after the statute expired.
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito questioned whether Congress intended to grant the President authority to suspend immunity in this manner.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens inquired whether the discussion concerns other provisions of law affecting court jurisdiction or foreign assistance.
Justice Ginsburg also asked whether any settlement must consider the impact on the Iraqi people, who were the primary victims of terrorism.
What each side argues
Petitioner: Republic of Iraq
According to Petitioners, the President, acting with express statutory authority, made terrorism‑related provisions inapplicable to Iraq, removing those provisions of law that applied to countries that sponsored terrorism.
According to Petitioners, because section 1605(a)(7) was made inapplicable to Iraq, it cannot serve as the statutory basis for abrogating Iraq’s foreign sovereign immunity or establishing subject‑matter jurisdiction.
Respondents: Jordan Beatty and Robert Simon
Plaintiffs argue that they are not left without any remedy; they should be treated like any other claimant against a foreign state that is not on the small list of designated state sponsors of terrorism.
Mr. Goldstein argues that the word “any” in the statute means “every,” supporting a broad application of the law.
According to Mr. Goldstein, he cites cases such as Atascadero and Raygor to illustrate that “any” means “every” except for the states.
According to Mr. Goldstein, he notes that the Solicitor General is correct that these claims, pleaded as state‑law claims, provide a substantive cause of action.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the emergency suspension of Iraq’s immunity, which had a one‑year sunset, means that immunity revived after the statute expired.
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito questioned whether Congress intended to grant the President authority to suspend immunity in this manner.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens inquired whether the discussion concerns other provisions of law affecting court jurisdiction or foreign assistance.
Justice Ginsburg also asked whether any settlement must consider the impact on the Iraqi people, who were the most numerous and probably the worst victims of terror.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
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.
- 63e7662dcdfa69c6b699-r1-4a3fc18f745c6629.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.