Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States
| Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 17, 2023 Decided April 19, 2023 | |
| Full case name | Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States of America |
| Docket no. | 21-1450 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Questions presented | |
| Whether U.S. district courts may exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions against foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and in light of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1441(d), 1602-1611. | |
| Holding | |
| The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's comprehensive scheme governing claims of sovereign immunity in civil actions against foreign states and their instrumentalities does not cover criminal cases. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kavanaugh, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, Jackson |
| Concur/dissent | Gorsuch, joined by Alito |
| Laws applied | |
| Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 | |
Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, 598 U.S. 264 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's comprehensive scheme governing claims of sovereign immunity in civil actions against foreign states and their instrumentalities does not cover criminal cases.[1] The case concerned the exposure of Turkish state-owned bank Halkbank to prosecution by the Department of Justice.[2][3][4][5]
Background
[edit]After an October 2021 ruling by judges José A. Cabranes, Joseph F. Bianco, and Amalya Kearse of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, asking "[w]hether U.S. district courts may exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions against foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities under 18 U.S.C. ... and in light of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act".[6]
The governments of Azerbaijan, Pakistan,[7] and Turkey filed amicus briefs in support of Halkbank. Professor Chimene Keitner and Mark B. Feldman filed an amicus brief supporting the government.[8]
Argument
[edit]Oral argument took place on January 17, 2023. Lisa Blatt argued on behalf of Halkbank.[2][5] On April 19, 2023, the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit.[9]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, No. 21-1450, 598 U.S. ___ (2023).
- ^ a b Liptak, Adam (January 17, 2023). "Supreme Court Looks for Middle Path in Prosecution of Turkish Bank". The New York Times.
- ^ Chung, Andrew; Kruzel, John (January 17, 2023). "U.S. Supreme Court mulls Turkish lender Halkbank's bid to avoid charges". Reuters.
- ^ Barnes, Robert (January 17, 2023). "Supreme Court struggles with criminal charges against Turkish-owned bank". The Washington Post.
- ^ a b Howe, Amy (January 17, 2023). "Justices probe global consequences of allowing U.S. prosecutions of companies owned by foreign governments". SCOTUSblog.
- ^ "Question Presented" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States.
- ^ "Brief amici curiae of Republic of Azerbaijan and Islamic Republic of Pakistan" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. June 16, 2022.
- ^ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1450/250647/20221221152328041_21-1450%20bsac%20Feldman%20%20Keitner.pdf
- ^ Howe, Amy (April 20, 2023). "Court rules federal immunity law does not shield Turkish bank from U.S. prosecution". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved January 1, 2024.
External links
[edit]- Text of Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, 598 U.S. 264 (2023) is available from: Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) Supreme Court (preliminary print)