Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13038
2d Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiffs seek turnover of $1.75 billion in assets to satisfy judgments against Iran under TRIA § 201(a) and 22 U.S.C. § 8772.
- Assets are cash proceeds of government bonds held in New York by Citibank for Clearstream; Bank Markazi asserts a beneficial interest through a chain of intermediaries.
- Executive Order 13,599 blocked the assets; Congress later enacted § 8772 directing turnover to satisfy judgments for terrorism-related damages.
- District court granted summary judgment in March 2013 under both TRIA § 201(a) and § 8772; turnover occurred in 2013.
- Bank Markazi challenges § 8772 on treaty, separation-of-powers, takings, and anti-suit injunction grounds; district court injunction against litigation related to Blocked Assets is at issue.
- Court of appeals affirms, holding § 8772 valid and consistent with treaty obligations, and upholding the anti-suit injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Treaty conflict with § 8772 | Bank Markazi: § 8772 conflicts with the Treaty of Amity | Bank Markazi: treaty controls over later statute | No conflict; later statute governs; treaty abrogated if in tension |
| Separation of powers under § 8772 | § 8772 does not encroach on judiciary | Statute compels a predetermined outcome in this case | Not a violation; § 8772 changes law, leaves fact-determination to courts |
| Takings Clause | Attachment of Bank Markazi assets to satisfy judgments is permissible | Risks unconstitutional taking via retroactive attachment | Not a taking; attachment to satisfy judgments against Iran permitted |
| Anti-suit injunction | Inherent power to protect judgment; injunction appropriate | Injunction improper outside U.S. jurisdiction | Affirmed; district court properly issued anti-suit injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Weinstein v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 609 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2010) (§ 8772 does not violate treaty or takings where judgment against Iran exists)
- United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003) (legislative acts trump treaty-based international law)
- Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society, 503 U.S. 429 (1992) (legislation changing law in pending cases permissible if not adjudicating findings)
- Axel Johnson Inc. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 6 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 1993) (statutes changing law applicable to limited class of cases; leaves adjudication to courts)
- Kraebel v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Hous. Pres. & Dev., 959 F.2d 395 (2d Cir. 1992) (standard for abuse-of-discretion review of injunctions)
- Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U.S. 176 (1982) (treaty interpretation and conflict with subsequent statute analysis)