Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran [SCOTUSbrief]

Can terror victims seize ancient Persian artifacts on loan to the U.S  as reparations for damages from a foreign state sponsor of terrorism? Eugene Kontorovich, Professor at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law explains the core issues in the case of Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran.

JUDGMENT: February 21, 2018. Affirmed, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor.

HOLDING: Section 1610(g) does not provide a freestanding basis for parties holding a judgment under  §1605A to attach and execute against the property of a foreign state. For  §1610(g) to apply, the immunity of the property at issue must be rescinded under a separate provision within  §1610.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...

**********

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Follow Eugene Kontorovich: @EVKontorovich
Twitter: EVKontorovich

Related links:

SCOTUSblog: Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/...

Harvard Law Review: Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran
https://harvardlawreview.org/2016/12/...

That Belongs in a Museum: Rubin v. Iran
http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/vie...