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 Asher Perlin (Petitioner), according to Asher Perlin (Petitioner), according to Asher Perlin (Petitioner), petitioners seek to execute judgments against Iran under Section 1610(g) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
Respondents argue that only property in which the foreign state has beneficial ownership is subject to execution, and that certain assets remain immune under the older sovereign immunity provisions.
Background and question before the Court
In 2008 Congress overhauled the terrorism exception to foreign sovereign immunity to allow victims to execute judgments against foreign states.
According to Asher Perlin (Petitioner), according to Asher Perlin (Petitioner), according to Asher Perlin (Petitioner), section 1610(g) provides a remedy for American terrorism victims to execute judgments on foreign state property while preserving a bare minimum of sovereign immunity for quintessentially sovereign assets.
Justice Sotomayor asked whether the definition of “foreign state” in the statute includes agencies or instrumentalities, potentially affecting the scope of execution.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the legislative record shows Congress intended to dispense with the “Bancec.”
Justice Sotomayor later asked for clarification of the argument presented.
- [1] eba5dd0c8c1a973df4c7-r1-3a29d12a7507d03c.pdf, p. 4
- [2] eba5dd0c8c1a973df4c7-r1-3a29d12a7507d03c.pdf, pp. 4–5
- [3] eba5dd0c8c1a973df4c7-r1-3a29d12a7507d03c.pdf, p. 8
- [4] eba5dd0c8c1a973df4c7-r1-3a29d12a7507d03c.pdf, p. 12
- [5] eba5dd0c8c1a973df4c7-r1-3a29d12a7507d03c.pdf, p. 24
- [6] eba5dd0c8c1a973df4c7-r1-3a29d12a7507d03c.pdf, p. 42
What each side argues
Petitioner (Jenny Rubin et al.)
According to Asher Perlin (Petitioner), according to Asher Perlin (Petitioner), according to Asher Perlin (Petitioner), petitioner argues that Section 1610(g) allows execution of judgments against Iran’s property.
According to Asher Perlin (Petitioner), according to Asher Perlin (Petitioner), according to Asher Perlin (Petitioner), petitioner emphasizes that Congress retained only a minimal sovereign immunity for quintessentially sovereign assets while making other assets subject to execution.
Respondent (Islamic Republic of Iran)
According to Respondents, respondent contends that only property in which the foreign state has beneficial ownership is subject to execution of the judgment.
According to Iran, respondent argues that Section 1610(b)(3) applies only to judgments entered against an agency or instrumentality, and therefore does not apply in this case.
According to United States (amicus curiae), according to United States (amicus curiae), according to United States (amicus curiae), amicus counsel for the United States states that ancient Persian artifacts are immune under 1609 and that 1610(g) does not lift that immunity.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Sotomayor asked whether the definition of “foreign state” includes agencies or instrumentalities, potentially affecting the scope of execution.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the legislative record shows Congress intended to dispense with the “Bancec.”
Justice Sotomayor later asked for clarification of the argument presented.
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.
- eba5dd0c8c1a973df4c7-r1-3a29d12a7507d03c.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 26, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.