Victims of Terror Can Seize Iranian Money, Supreme Court Rules

[BLACKEAGLE]

Victims of Terror Can Seize Iranian Money, Supreme Court Rules
by Pete Williams

Victims of terrorist attacks that were backed by Iran, and members of their families, can collect nearly $2 billion in Iranian money held by a bank in New York, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The ruling ends a long quest for compensation by more than 1,000 victims of terrorist attacks committed throughout the Middle East sponsored by Iran, including family members of 241 US Marines killed in a 1983 barracks bombing in Lebanon.

That attack was blamed on Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militia backed by Iran.

"The decision will bring long overdue relief to more than 1,000 victims of Iranian terror and their families, many of whom have waited for decades," said Theodore Olson of Washington, D.C., who argued the case for the families.

Related: Supreme Court Takes Up Issue of Money for Victims of Iran Terror

The victims earlier won the right to collect damages from Iran, but because the Iranian government refused to pay, they asked a federal court to let them seize Iranian assets held by Iran's central bank, Bank Markazi, in New York that were frozen by the Obama administration.

While that lawsuit was pending, the families in 2012 persuaded Congress to pass a law allowing them to seize the Iranian bank's money.


The Iranian flag flies in front of a United Nations building in 2014. Ronald Zak / AP file
Lawyers for the bank claimed that Congress unconstitutionally directed the courts to reach a certain outcome, violating the separation of powers and international treaties.

But by a 6-2 vote, the Supreme Court said Wednesday that Congress was well within its powers, because the law it passed applied to many lawsuits and claims, not just one, and because Congress has a role to play in foreign affairs.

"Not only will the victims of Iranian terrorism be compensated for their suffering, but Iran itself will now be held responsible for the deplorable acts of terrorism that it sponsors. We hope it also serves to meaningfully deter it from continuing to do the same but Congress, the administration and indeed the world community must not allow it the benefits of legitimacy until it ceases this malign behavior," said Mark Dubowitz, Executive Director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, offering an example of why they believed the court's decision was wrong.

Suppose, Roberts wrote, that your neighbor sues you, claiming you put your fence on his property. He has a letter from the previous owner of your home about where the property line is, but you have the official county map.

Imagine, he said, that while your case is pending, the state legislature passes a law that says for your case only, a letter from one neighbor to another is conclusive evidence.

"Who would you say decided your case: the legislature, which targeted your specific case and eliminated your specific defenses so as to ensure your neighbors victory, or the court?"

The dissenters said Congress did much the same here, violating the separation of powers.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/victims-terror-can-seize-iranian-money-scotus-rules-n559271

 

[Solomon2]

...The victims earlier won the right to collect damages from Iran, but because the Iranian government refused to pay, they asked a federal court to let them seize Iranian assets held by Iran's central bank, Bank Markazi, in New York that were frozen by the Obama administration.

Thus this ruling isn't about Iran's guilt or not - the courts already established that and ruled against Iran - but regards the post-judgement enforcement proceeding - that is, how to get the money that Iran was ordered to pay but would not. The Court cited previously-decided cases that it's O.K. for Congress to change the law and apply it retroactively in post-judgement enforcement proceedings.

The Court also rejected Iran's contention that the revision applied only to them. The Court noted it applies to fifteen other suits AND from precedent that there is no requirement that a law be generally applicable.

Finally, the Court decided that this wasn't a "violation of separation of powers" as Iran claimed, but "an exercise of congressional authority regarding foreign affairs, a domain in which the controlling role of the political branches is both necessary and proper" citing precedents.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, offering an example of why they believed the court's decision was wrong.Suppose, Roberts wrote, that your neighbor sues you, claiming you put your fence on his property. He has a letter from the previous owner of your home about where the property line is, but you have the official county map.Imagine, he said, that while your case is pending, the state legislature passes a law that says for your case only, a letter from one neighbor to another is conclusive evidence. "Who would you say decided your case: the legislature, which targeted your specific case and eliminated your specific defenses so as to ensure your neighbors victory, or the court?"​

In response, the majority countered:

The dissent also analogizes §8772 to a law that makes “conclusive” one party’s flimsy evidence of a boundary line in a pending property dispute, notwithstanding that the governing law ordinarily provides that an official map establishes the boundary. Post, at 1. Section 8772, however, does not restrict the evidence on which a court may rely in making the required findings. A more fitting analogy for depicting §8772’s operation might be: In a pending property dispute, the parties contest whether an ambiguous statute makes a 1990 or 2000 county map the relevant document for establishing boundary lines. To clarify the matter, the legislature enacts a law specifying that the 2000 map supersedes the earlier map.
​

Text of Opinion

 

[beast89]

I think americans are more interested in this though this week.