October Term 2008 · Docket 07-615

Does the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act bar Iran from offsetting a U.S. judgment?

Iran seeks to offset a U.S. court judgment against it. The U.S. government argues the statute prevents this offset.

Official caption
Ministry of Defense and Support for Armed Forces of Islamic Republic of Iran v. Elahi
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Bederman argued the statute requires a specific statutory construction.

    Hallward-Driemeier defended critical U.S. interests before the Claims Tribunal.

    Bederman rejected the claim that an arbitral award created a novation.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the scope of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. Iran wants to reduce its debt to a U.S. claimant. The U.S. government says the law blocks this move.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 12, 2009.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Iran wants to offset its U.S. judgment debt.

The U.S. government wants to block the offset.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Iran argues the statute permits offsetting judgments.

The U.S. government argues the statute prohibits this offset.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Ginsburg asked about the status of the Cubic appeal.

Chief Justice Roberts asked if a bank account suffices for offset.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute defines how foreign states settle U.S. judgments. It shapes the balance between sovereign immunity and private rights.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON