October Term 2017 · Docket 16-534

Does the terrorism exception allow seizing Iranian embassy property?

Victims seek to seize Iranian embassy assets. Iran claims those assets remain immune from seizure.

Official caption
Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran
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.

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

    Mr. Perlin argued Congress overhauled the terrorism exception in 2008.

    Mr. Tripp argued Persian artifacts remain immune under section 1609.

    Mr. Strauss cited legislative history regarding the precursor statute.

    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 a 2008 law. The law lets victims sue foreign states for terrorism. It also allows seizing certain property to pay judgments. The dispute centers on whether embassy assets count as seizable property.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 4, 2017.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Victims want to seize Iranian embassy assets to satisfy their judgments.

Iran wants to keep its embassy assets immune from seizure.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Victims argue the 2008 law comprehensively overhauled immunity rules to close gaps.

Iran argues ancient Persian artifacts remain immune under existing sovereign immunity laws.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Breyer asked if clients could execute on the embassy.

Justice Ginsburg noted Congress intended to remove specific immunity factors here.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the limits of sovereign immunity for foreign states. It determines which assets victims can seize to recover damages. The outcome shapes future enforcement of terrorism judgments against foreign governments.

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