October Term 2022 · Docket 21-1450

Does a general federal jurisdiction statute waive a foreign bank's criminal immunity?

A Turkish bank argues that a broad jurisdiction law does not waive its sovereign immunity in a criminal case.

Official caption
Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

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

    Ms. Blatt argued that general laws do not reach foreign sovereigns in criminal cases.

    Ms. Blatt stated that Congress has not authorized courts to convict foreign nations.

    Mr. Feigin argued that the statute recognizes potential implications for other cases.

    Mr. Feigin contended that the law ensures proper handling of these situations.

    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

The dispute centers on whether a general federal statute grants courts power to prosecute a foreign sovereign. The bank claims the law lacks a clear statement of intent to waive immunity. The government argues the statute provides sufficient authority for criminal prosecution.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 17, 2023.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The bank wants the Court to reverse the lower court and dismiss the criminal case.

The government wants the Court to affirm the lower court and allow the prosecution to continue.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The bank argues that general jurisdiction laws do not waive foreign sovereign immunity without a clear statement.

The government argues that the specific statute authorizes federal courts to exercise criminal jurisdiction over the bank.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Kavanaugh asked if remanding the case to the Second Circuit is appropriate.

Justice Thomas asked if sovereign immunity is a personal defense rather than a jurisdictional bar.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the limits of federal criminal power over foreign entities. It determines whether general statutes can override sovereign immunity. The outcome shapes how nations interact with U.S. courts in criminal matters.

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

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

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

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

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

Download this sanitized case as JSON