In the case of Ministry of Defense and Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Dariush Elahi, 2008, Dr. Dariush Elahi filed a lawsuit against Iran's Ministry of Defense seeking compensation for his brother Cyrus' assassination in Paris by Iranian agents in 1990. In response to this claim, Congress passed legislation allowing victims like Elahi to sue foreign governments that sponsor terrorism and seize their assets within U.S jurisdiction as compensation if they win their cases. However, when an Italian company owed money to Iran's defense ministry was sued by Elahi under this law, he was denied access due to a clause stating that individuals who accept remuneration from certain funds are ineligible for further damages from other sources related to those claims. The Supreme Court upheld lower court rulings denying him access on these grounds despite arguments about whether or not accepting payment constituted waiving rights under international law.

In the dissenting opinion for the case 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 deprive victims like Elahi from collecting damages from Iranian assets when it passed a law in 2002. He believed that there was no clear evidence indicating this intention in either text or legislative history. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies between majority's interpretation and other provisions within same statute which could potentially allow victims to collect under certain conditions. In his view, these inconsistencies suggested that Congress intended a more flexible approach than what majority had adopted. Additionally, he disagreed with majority's reliance on State Department’s views as they were not presented until litigation reached Supreme Court and thus should be given less weight.