Ministry of Defense and Support for Armed Forces of Islamic Republic of Iran v. Elahi, 546 U.S. 450 (2006)
Primary Holding
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not provide an exception for the attachment of property owned by a foreign state itself based on engagement in commercial activity; such an exception applies only to the property of an "agency or instrumentality" of a foreign state.
In the case of *Ministry of Defense and Support for Armed Forces of Islamic Republic of Iran v. Elahi*, a private citizen tried to claim money from Iran's Ministry of Defense to satisfy a judgment for damages related to his brother's murder. The Supreme Court ruled that the law protecting foreign governments from being sued does not allow for seizing property owned directly by the government, even if they are involved in commercial activities. This case is important for consumers because it clarifies that individuals cannot easily go after a foreign government's property to collect debts, which affects how people can seek justice and compensation in international disputes. If someone is in a situation where they want to claim damages from a foreign government, this case shows that it may be difficult to access their assets directly.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In the case of *Ministry of Defense and Support for Armed Forces of Islamic Republic of Iran v. Elahi*, the underlying dispute arose from a default judgment obtained by private citizen Dariush Elahi against the Islamic Republic of Iran for approximately $300 million. This judgment was based on claims that the Iranian government was responsible for the murder of Elahi's brother. To satisfy this judgment, Elahi sought to attach an asset belonging to Iran’s Ministry of Defense, specifically an arbitration award that the Ministry had secured in Switzerland against a third party. The procedural history began when the Ministry of Defense petitioned the Federal District Court for the Southern District of California to confirm the arbitration award. Elahi intervened in this case, aiming to impose a lien on the award to satisfy his judgment. The Ministry contended that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) provided it immunity from such attachment. The District Court initially rejected this immunity claim, ruling that the Ministry had waived its immunity by seeking to enforce the award. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed regarding the waiver but ultimately ruled against the Ministry on different grounds, concluding that the Ministry was engaged in commercial activity in the United States, which negated its immunity under the FSIA. The case reached the Supreme Court after the Ministry filed a petition for certiorari, which the Solicitor General supported, focusing on whether the property of a foreign state is immune from attachment under the FSIA. The Supreme Court's review was limited to the question of whether the Ministry should be classified as a "foreign state" or as an "agency or instrumentality" of a foreign state, which would affect the applicability of the FSIA's provisions regarding immunity from attachment.
Whether the property of a foreign state situated in the United States is immune from attachment under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- February 21, 2006
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Permanent Mission of India to United Nations v. City of New York, 551 U.S. 193 (2007)
Consumer LostThe Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not provide immunity to a foreign sovereign from a lawsuit seeking to declare the validity of tax liens on property held by the sovereign for the purpose of housing its employees, as such matters involve "rights in immovable property" situated in the United States.
Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services, Inc., 551 U.S. 224 (2007)
Consumer LostA foreign corporation that is a wholly owned subsidiary of a foreign state does not qualify as an "organ of a foreign state" under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) for the purposes of removal to federal court.
Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (2006)
Consumer LostThe refusal to apply the judgment bar of the Federal Tort Claims Act is not subject to collateral appeal, as it does not constitute a final decision under 28 U.S.C. §1291.
Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851 (2008)
Consumer LostThe foreign sovereign immunity of a state precludes a court from proceeding with an action in which the sovereign cannot be joined as a party, and the court must consider the implications of Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in light of this immunity.