Steven Greenbaum v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 67 F.4th 428

The United States obtained a warrant in Dec. 2020 to seize oil cargo alleged to belong to Iran’s armed forces; the vessel M/T Achilleas delivered the cargo to the U.S. after acknowledging the warrant.
The U.S. filed a civil forfeiture action and constructively arrested the cargo pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(c); the oil was sold pre-judgment and net proceeds (~$100M) are held in a U.S. interest-bearing escrow account while forfeiture litigation continues.
The appellants are judgment creditors who earlier obtained terrorism-judgments against Iran under the FSIA exception (28 U.S.C. § 1605A/1605(a)(7)) and sought post-judgment writs of attachment/garnishment to collect the proceeds.
The U.S. intervened, arguing federal sovereign immunity bars attachment/garnishment of funds in the U.S. Government’s custody; the district court agreed and quashed the writs.
The appellants argued § 201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA), 28 U.S.C. § 1610 note, waived federal sovereign immunity for blocked assets; the district court rejected that waiver claim.
The D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding federal sovereign immunity applies to the escrowed proceeds and the TRIA does not clearly waive that immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal sovereign immunity bars attachment/garnishment of the oil-sale proceeds held by the U.S.	Greenbaum: judgment creditors may attach blocked/forfeited assets to satisfy terrorism judgments.	U.S.: funds are held in a government escrow/agency account and attachment would impose monetary liability on the U.S., so sovereign immunity bars it.	Held: Sovereign immunity applies; possession by the U.S. (escrow) bars attachment and naming U.S. agencies as garnishees seeks monetary relief against the U.S. and is impermissible.
Whether TRIA §201(a) waives federal sovereign immunity for blocked assets in the United States	Greenbaum: TRIA’s "notwithstanding any other provision of law" and definition of "blocked asset" clearly subject such assets to execution, so it waives federal immunity.	U.S.: TRIA does not expressly mention the United States or its sovereign immunity; waiver must be clear and unmistakable.	Held: TRIA does not clearly waive federal sovereign immunity; the notwithstanding clause and definitions are ambiguous and cannot be read to supply the required clear waiver.

Kalodner v. Abraham, 310 F.3d 767 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (possession by the federal government is the sine qua non of federal sovereign immunity)
United States v. N.Y. Rayon Importing Co., 329 U.S. 654 (Supreme Court 1947) (government need not have an actual proprietary interest to invoke immunity)
Dep't of Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U.S. 255 (Supreme Court 1999) (sovereign immunity bars attachment or garnishment of Treasury funds)
United States v. Waksberg, 112 F.3d 1225 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (courts may not impose monetary relief against the United States without congressional consent)
FAA v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 284 (Supreme Court 2012) (waiver of sovereign immunity must be clearly discernible from statutory text)
Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 566 U.S. 560 (Supreme Court 2012) (when a statutory term is undefined, give it its ordinary meaning)
Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 138 S. Ct. 816 (Supreme Court 2018) (TRIA as example of statute that can divest a foreign state's immunity for terrorism-related judgments)
Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (Supreme Court 1990) (payments from the Treasury must be authorized by statute; fiscal control rationale for sovereign immunity)
Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (Supreme Court 1996) (waiver of federal sovereign immunity cannot be implied and must be unequivocal)