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
According to Petitioner, the case concerns whether a party that receives funds under the Victims Protection and Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) must relinquish enforcement rights over property that is the subject of claims against the United States before an international tribunal.
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioner, the central issue is whether a party that receives TRIA funds must give up rights to enforce claims against property that is at issue in an international tribunal proceeding.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
Petitioner argues that TRIA requires a party receiving funds to relinquish enforcement rights over property that is the subject of claims against the United States before an international tribunal.
According to Petitioner, petitioner seeks reversal of the lower court's opinion.
Respondent Position
According to Mr. Bederman, respondent (through counsel Mr. Bederman) asserts that under the sales contract, credit must be given to Iran for its advance payment.
What happened at oral argument
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether a bank account could be set off and if that would make the account at issue with respect to the claim.
Justice Ginsburg asked for clarification about the status of the Cubic judgment on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
Justice Ginsburg asked why the Cubic judgment has been pending for ten years.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether Iran could take proceeds out of the United States given the 2007 blocking order.
Justice Kennedy asked whether the issue before the Iran tribunal is a set‑off in the event of a judgment in favor of Iran.
Chief Justice Roberts asked for a general test to decide whether particular assets are at issue.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg questioned whether the issue is moot.
Justice Kennedy asked how the execution of the judgment affects whether the Iran tribunal could hold the funds rather than order payment.
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer noted that the issue could be read either way.
Justice Breyer asked whether money that goes to an attaching person counts against the amount the United States owes Iran.
Justice Ginsburg asked why the United States would seek credit whether Iran or its creditors receive the money.
- [1] d382cf1b7f2216df693c-r1-5bfc9393b53c6101.pdf, p. 4
- [2] d382cf1b7f2216df693c-r1-5bfc9393b53c6101.pdf, p. 10
- [3] d382cf1b7f2216df693c-r1-5bfc9393b53c6101.pdf, p. 11
- [4] d382cf1b7f2216df693c-r1-5bfc9393b53c6101.pdf, p. 12
- [5] d382cf1b7f2216df693c-r1-5bfc9393b53c6101.pdf, p. 15
- [6] d382cf1b7f2216df693c-r1-5bfc9393b53c6101.pdf, p. 16
- [7] d382cf1b7f2216df693c-r1-5bfc9393b53c6101.pdf, p. 23
- [8] d382cf1b7f2216df693c-r1-5bfc9393b53c6101.pdf, p. 30
- [9] d382cf1b7f2216df693c-r1-5bfc9393b53c6101.pdf, p. 35
- [10] d382cf1b7f2216df693c-r1-5bfc9393b53c6101.pdf, p. 38
- [11] d382cf1b7f2216df693c-r1-5bfc9393b53c6101.pdf, p. 41
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.
- d382cf1b7f2216df693c-r1-5bfc9393b53c6101.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.