Term: 2015
Docket: 14-770
Bank Markazi v. Peterson
- Pro
14-770 BANK MARKAZI V. PETERSON DECISION BELOW: 758 F.3d 185 CERT. GRANTED 10/1/2015 QUESTION PRESENTED: This case concerns nearly $2 billion of bonds in which Bank Markazi, the Central Bank of Iran, held an interest in Europe as part of its foreign currency reserves. Plaintiffs, who hold default judgments against Iran, tried to seize the assets. While the case was pending, Congress enacted §502 of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, 22 U.S.C. §8772. By its terms, that statute applies only to this one case: to "the financial assets that are identified in and the subject of proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Peterson et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al., Case No. 10 Civ. 4518 (BSJ) (GWG)." Id. §8772(b). "In order to ensure that Iran is held accountable for paying the judgments," it provides that, notwithstanding any other state or federal law, the assets "shall be subject to execution" upon only two findings - essentially, that Bank Markazi has a beneficial interest in them and that no one else does. Id. §8772(a)(l), (2). The question presented is: Whether §8772 - a statute that effectively directs a particular result in a single pending case - violates the separation of powers. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 13-2952
The U.S. Supreme Court case Bank Markazi v. Peterson in 2015 revolved around a dispute between Iran's central bank, Bank Markazi, and more than 1,000 Americans (Peterson et al.). The American plaintiffs were victims or relatives of victims of terrorist attacks allegedly sponsored by Iran. They sought to collect damages from frozen Iranian assets held in the United States under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA). In response, Bank Markazi argued that Congress had violated the separation of powers principle when it passed a law specifically designed to determine the outcome of their pending case - an argument known as "violating the rule against legislating for a single case". However, this was rejected by six justices who ruled that Congress acted within its power when it enacted legislation making it easier for these plaintiffs to recover their court-awarded damages from Iran’s blocked assets.
In the dissenting opinion for Bank Markazi v. Peterson, Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Sotomayor, argued that the majority's decision violated the separation of powers principle embedded in the U.S. Constitution. They contended that Congress had overstepped its bounds by passing a law specifically designed to decide an ongoing case - essentially usurping judicial power and undermining judicial independence. The dissenters expressed concern about setting a precedent where Congress could intervene directly in court cases whenever it disagreed with potential outcomes or wanted to ensure particular results. This view held that such actions threatened fundamental constitutional principles and risked politicizing what should be impartial legal proceedings.
