Monday, July 25, 2016
Courts - "Appeals courts split on seizing assets connected to state terror sponsors" 7th and 9th Circuits
That is the heading of this long July 22nd Reuters "One the Case" column by Alison Frankel. Here are a few quotes:
It is exceedingly difficult for U.S. victims of state-sponsored terrorism to collect money, even when they’ve won default judgments against Iran, Syria and the Sudan. * * *
In 2008, Congress wanted to knock down some of the barriers to collection for antiterrorism plaintiffs holding judgments against state sponsors. One of the biggest obstacles was the U.S. * * * Congress amended FSIA in 2008, apparently in response to the Supreme Court’s so-called Bancec doctrine. But the language of the amendment wasn’t exactly clear on whether the amendment created a new and independent right, outside of FSIA restrictions, for terror victims trying to enforce judgments against state sponsors or whether the new provision just eliminates the Bancec requirements but leaves intact other FSIA restrictions.
This week, the 7th Circuit issued a ruling on just what seizures the amendment authorizes – and it reached precisely the opposite conclusion as the 9th Circuit in a decision last month on the same question. What’s more, the 7th Circuit panel – Judges Diane Sykes and William Bauer and U.S. District Judge Michael Reagan of East St. Louis, sitting by designation – specifically overruled two previous 7th Circuit opinions cited in last month’s contrary decision by the 9th Circuit. The 7th Circuit’s new ruling, in a case captioned Rubin v. Islamic Republic, creates a clear split between two appellate circuits on U.S. terror victims have a freestanding right to execute on judgments regardless of whether the assets they want to seize would otherwise be shielded under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 25, 2016 11:50 AM
Posted to Ind. (7th Cir.) Decisions