In the case of Ministry of Defense and Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Dariush Elahi, 2005, Dr. Dariush Elahi sued Iran's Ministry of Defense (MOD) in U.S courts to recover damages for his brother's assassination allegedly orchestrated by Iranian agents. The court awarded him $311 million in compensatory and punitive damages which he sought to collect from MOD assets held within United States jurisdiction. However, Congress passed a law that prohibited such action unless claimants relinquished their rights to any further compensation from blocked Iranian assets or future victim compensation funds established by the U.S government. Despite this restriction, Elahi attempted to attach MOD’s property interest in a contract dispute pending arbitration between two defense contractors - Cubic Defense Systems Inc., an American company and MOD itself over a terminated military sales agreement dating back before Iran’s revolution. The Supreme Court ruled against Elahi stating that under federal law (the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act), he was not entitled to seize these particular assets because he had already accepted partial payment ($2.3 million) from Treasury Department-administered fund meant for victims like himself; thus waiving his right as per Congressional legislation.

In the dissenting opinion for Ministry of Defense and Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Dariush Elahi, Justice Breyer argued that Congress did not intend to allow victims like Elahi to attach Iranian military property in order to satisfy their judgments. He pointed out that such an interpretation would undermine U.S foreign policy interests by potentially exposing American assets abroad to similar claims from foreign nationals. Furthermore, he contended that it was inconsistent with a basic principle of statutory construction: when two statutes are capable of co-existence, courts should regard each as effective rather than allowing one statute's specific provision (allowing attachment) to override another's general prohibition against attachments on certain types of property. Lastly, he emphasized that this case involved complex issues related not only to domestic law but also international relations and national security; thus requiring deference towards executive branch interpretations which favored non-attachment.