Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran
709 F.3d 49
1st Cir.2013Background
- Plaintiffs are U.S. citizens injured in the 1997 Hamas terrorist attack in Jerusalem and sued Iran in the District of Columbia for providing material support.
- In 2003 the plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against Iran (Campuzano v. Islamic Rep. of Iran) and sought attachment by trustee process in Massachusetts against antiquities held by Harvard and the MFA.
- District court granted the Museums’ motions to dissolve attachments, finding immunity under FSIA and, potentially, TRIA, but requiring ownership proof for TRIA relief.
- Discovery occurred; the district court held that Iran did not own the antiquities, and thus dissolved attachments, prompting this appeal.
- The appeal addressed whether TRIA can overcome FSIA immunity, whether the antiquities are “blocked assets,” and related ownership and timing issues, with OFAC’s views considered.
- The court ultimately held the TRIA claim failed because the antiquities were not “blocked assets,” and affirmed dissolution of attachments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does TRIA attach blocked assets if the asset is uncontested? | Rubin II; plaintiffs argue TRIA can reach any Iran asset even without direct Iranian ownership if contested by judgment creditor. | Museums argue assets must be blocked and contested; here, assets are uncontested due to lack of Iranian claim. | Antiquities are not blocked assets; TRIA does not apply. |
| Are the Museums proper defendants to assert immunity on Iran's behalf? | Plaintiffs contend Museums cannot invoke sovereign immunity on Iran's behalf. | Museums may invoke immunity as holders of Iran's assets. | Issue deemed resolved in prior proceedings; not central to dispositive ruling here. |
| Do the OFAC regulations treat the antiquities as contested assets under 31 C.F.R. § 535.333 to be considered blocked assets for TRIA? | TRIA should treat disputed ownership as establishing blocked assets. | OFAC regulations require Iran itself to claim an interest; absence of Iran's claim means assets are uncontested and unblocked. | OFAC's interpretation controls; assets here are uncontested and unblocked; TRIA not available. |
| Does FSIA immunity from attachment remain available despite TRIA in this context? | TRIA preempts FSIA, allowing attachment of Iran's assets. | FSIA immunity subsists absent TRIA-blocked asset status; TRIA does not nullify FSIA here. | FSIA immunity remains; attachments dissolved. |
| Should section 1610(g) of the FSIA be considered for retroactive application to allow attachment? | Plaintiffs invoked 1610(g) via NDAA to reach broader assets. | Argument waived for failure to raise timely in Massachusetts court and on appeal. | Section 1610(g) claim not considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. McCoy, 131 S. Ct. 871 (2011) (deference to agency interpretations; contest of asset ownership)
- Ministry of Defense & Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Rep. of Iran v. Elahi, 556 U.S. 366 (2009) (blocked assets under IEEPA/OFAC framework)
- Weinstein v. Islamic Rep. of Iran, 609 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2010) (analysis of sanctions and asset attachments against Iran)