Bennett v. Islamic Republic of Iran
618 F.3d 19
D.C. Cir.2010Background
- Bennett and Bennett (collectively, the Bennetts) obtained a default judgment exceeding $12 million against Iran for Iran's alleged support of Hamas in a Jerusalem bombing that killed their daughter.
- To satisfy the judgment, the Bennetts obtained writs of attachment against Iran’s former diplomatic properties in the District of Columbia, including the embassy, ambassador’s residence, a diplomatic residence, and two parking lots.
- The United States, custodian of the properties since 1980 after severing diplomatic ties with Iran, moved to quash the writs arguing TRIA precludes attachment of such property.
- The district court granted the government’s motion to quash; the Bennetts appealed, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed, reviewing de novo.
- The properties are seized assets of a state sponsor of terrorism; TRIA shields from attachment those “being used exclusively for diplomatic or consular purposes.”
- A central issue is whether the properties are being used exclusively for diplomatic or consular purposes, given that the United States uses the properties to fulfill Vienna Convention obligations and sometimes rents them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| TRIA exemption scope for diplomatic property | Bennetts: use by private tenants may destroy immunity. | United States: purpose is the exclusive determinant; U.S. use qualifies as diplomatic. | Attachment precluded; property used exclusively for diplomatic purposes at time. |
| Present vs past use standard under TRIA | Past nondiplomatic use matters for immunity. | Present use governs immunity. | Immunity turns on present use; if presently used exclusively for diplomatic purposes, immune. |
| Relationship to Vienna Convention obligations | Renting to third parties to generate income is nondiplomatic. | Use must be judged by the United States’ purpose to respect and protect the mission. | Use tied to U.S. treaty obligations; immunity maintained due to purpose of protecting Vienna Convention duties. |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 389 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (TRIA context; de novo review of attachment question)
- Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc., 484 U.S. 49 (U.S. 1988) (present vs past tense analysis in statutory interpretation)
- Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468 (U.S. 2003) (use of present tense to determine instrumentality status at suit filing)
- Carr v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2229 (U.S. 2010) (present-tense interpretation in statutory context)
- Connell Bank of Commerce v. Republic of Congo, 308 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 2002) (analogous commercial-use analysis under immunity regimes)
- Joseph v. Office of the Consulate General of Nigeria, 830 F.2d 1018 (9th Cir. 1987) (focus on nature of use in foreign sovereign immunities context)
- Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 333 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (treatment of treaty-based immunities in TRIA-like contexts)
- Hegna v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 376 F.3d 485 (5th Cir. 2004) (use of rental proceeds to maintain property under Vienna Convention)