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
The Court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not apply to criminal proceedings.
The Court affirmed that Section 1604 provides immunity to foreign sovereigns absent an express statutory exception.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the criminal case against Halkbank may proceed.
Background and question before the Court
Halkbank moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that as an instrumentality of a foreign state it is immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
What each side argues
Halkbank
According to Halkbank, the indictment should be dismissed because 18 U.S.C. § 3231 does not extend to prosecutions of instrumentalities of foreign states.
According to Halkbank, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for instrumentalities of foreign states.
According to Halkbank, section 1604 renders Halkbank immune not only from civil suits but also from criminal prosecutions.
Petitioner (Lisa S. Blatt)
According to Lisa S. Blatt (Petitioner), according to Lisa S. Blatt (Petitioner), general admiralty jurisdiction laws do not reach foreign sovereigns, and that principle applies with greater force here.
According to Lisa S. Blatt (Petitioner), according to Lisa S. Blatt (Petitioner), the FSIA defines foreign states to include instrumentalities, so instrumentalities like Halkbank should be treated as sovereigns.
According to Ms. Blatt, there is no statutory provision granting immunity for criminal prosecutions.
Respondent (Eric J. Feigin)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Kavanaugh noted that the FSIA is silent on criminal matters.
Justice Barrett asked whether disagreement about criminal jurisdiction would affect the argument.
According to Justice Gorsuch, justice Gorsuch inquired about the impact of a ruling that Section 1604 does not provide immunity.
Justice Kagan asked whether Congress, when enacting the FSIA, dramatically changed the common law regarding instrumentalities of sovereign states.
What the Court decided
The Court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not apply to criminal proceedings.
The Court affirmed that Section 1604 provides immunity to foreign sovereigns absent an express statutory exception.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the criminal case against Halkbank may proceed.
Why it matters
Halkbank warned that if the Court finds the FSIA does not apply in the criminal context, courts and the Executive will lack congressional guidance for procedure in criminal cases.
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.
- 8a2cc6fce144cb737d3d-r1-868a92d02c0b86ce.pdfopinion
- 9d49c8bfda7c475ffaa0-r1-edb0b8124f11f48b.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 29, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.