Bank Markazi v Peterson (US Supreme Court, 2016)

Bank Markazi v Peterson, 578 US 212 (2016), rejected a separation-of-powers challenge to the statute making identified Iranian assets available to satisfy terrorism judgments. Decided on 20 April 2016, it concerns a particular statutory route for judgment enforcement. It supplies no general authority to confiscate foreign central-bank reserves.

Assets and statute

More than 1,000 claimants in 16 groups sought turnover of approximately US$1.75 billion in bond assets held through intermediaries at a New York bank. Congress enacted 22 USC section 8772 while enforcement proceedings were pending. The 2012 provision identified the consolidated proceeding and its assets; it was a separate statute, not an amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (United States, 1976) (judgment, pp. 215 to 224).

The provision required judicial findings about the assets' location, blocked status and relationship to Iranian assets. The court also had to determine whether Iran held equitable title or a beneficial interest and whether another person possessed a constitutionally protected interest. These were conditions of the statutory route described in the judgment, not permission to execute against any Iranian property (pp. 218 to 219).

Holding and disagreement

The majority distinguished changing applicable law from directing a result under existing law. Congress could apply a new substantive standard to pending litigation even if it determined the outcome. The Court also rejected the proposition that legislation must cover a broad class of cases. Naming a proceeding did not itself invalidate the statute (pp. 225 to 234).

Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Sotomayor, dissented. They considered the provision a legislative decision of the parties' dispute, contrary to the judicial power protected by Article III. Justice Thomas joined the majority apart from its additional foreign-affairs reasoning (pp. 214, 234 to 252).

Statecraft significance and limits

The case shows why an Asset freeze, a damages judgment and execution against specified property require distinct analysis. The Court described immunity from suit and immunity from execution separately; it did not hold that central-bank assets generally lacked protection. It expressly left undecided whether the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act independently authorised this execution (pp. 216 to 219 and 225, note 16).

This entry describes the 2016 statute and holding. It does not certify the present wording of section 8772, the international legality of every execution measure, or a power for the executive to confiscate reserves without legislation. A contemporary proposal for Central-bank reserve immobilisation and confiscation requires its own asset, jurisdiction, immunity and statutory analysis.

See also

ICJ Certain Iranian Assets (2023) · Dames & Moore v Regan (US Supreme Court, 1981) · Economic statecraft

Sources

• Supreme Court of the United States, *Bank Markazi v Peterson*, 578 US 212, 20 April 2016, pp. 212 to 252, including majority and dissent. Official bound volume, accessed 30 October 2026.