The United States imposes a wide variety of economic sanctions on foreign individuals, foreign corporations, countries, terrorist organizations, and other entities. Sanctions are an increasingly important part of U.S. foreign policy and they play a significant role in the work of the United Nations, the European Union, and some other countries. Many sanctions do not give rise to litigation, but some do. Indeed, some sanctions legislation provides a cause of action, lifts foreign sovereign immunity, or otherwise makes it easier to sue sanctioned entities in the United States.
Sanctions related to terrorism generate a lot of litigation, so we have grouped the two topics together. Sanctions are imposed for many reasons other than terrorism, however, and some terrorism-related litigation is not a product of sanctions. Finally, sanctions are a controversial topic globally, in part because it is unclear that they are effective at changing behavior and in part because they often have negative consequences for marginalized communities in the countries subjected to sanctions, including countries like Afghanistan, Iran, and Venezuela.
Helms-Burton’s Statute of Repose
Helms-Burton plaintiffs just can’t seem to catch a break. They have struggled to establish personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants, run into issues of foreign sovereign immunity, and found that their property rights have expired. Now, the Second Circuit has held that the Helms-Burton Act’s statute of repose blocks claims more than two years old. Congress…
Continue ReadingRule 19 and Continuing Litigation in Peterson v. Bank Markazi
Last November, the Second Circuit decided in Peterson v. Bank Markazi that Bank Markazi, Iran’s Central Bank, remained immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA) despite the enactment of 22 U.S.C. § 8772, which subjects certain Iranian assets to “execution or attachment” to satisfy judgments against Iran. The district court will now…
Continue ReadingSupreme Court CVSGs in Terrorism Case
On January 13, 2025, the Supreme Court called for the views of the Solicitor General in Borochov v. Islamic Republic of Iran. (This is commonly known as a “CVSG.”) The question presented is whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s (FSIA) exception for state sponsors of terrorism, 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, extends to cases in which…
Continue ReadingIngrid (Wuerth) Brunk, Does Foreign Sovereign Immunity Apply to Sanctions on Central Banks?
Scott R. Anderson, What’s Happening with Afghanistan’s Assets?
Jamie L. Boucher, et al., The Potential Impact of Terrorism Lawsuits Under the Antiterrorism Act on Ordinary Corporate, Banking and Sovereign Enterprises