tivities.ConclusionAlthough it will take some time before the full ramifications of this decision are known, the Court’s decision in Halkbank has the potential to impact criminal prosecutions of foreign states, and foreign policy in a variety of ways. Among other things, the ruling may affect how courts apply canons of statutory construction to the FSIA, or how federal and state courts address the availability of common law sovereign immunity. We will analyze those potential impacts and others in the coming weeks. Case No. 21-1450, Decision available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1450_5468.pdf.Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U. S. 305 (2010). Aspects of this immunity will be addressed by the organizations charter, the international agreement on which the organization was formed, or perhaps immunity addressed in headquarters agreements. Again, more analysis on this topic will follow. Decisionat 1.Id. at 1-2. 7 Cranch 116 (1812). Decision at 3-5.Id. at 7.Id. at 7-8.Id. at 9. 28 U.S.C. §1604. Decision at 10-11.Id. at 11.Id. at 13-14.Id. at 14-15. Dissent at 2-3.Id. at 4.Id.Id. at 5-7.

ates or their agencies or instrumentalities and (2) whether the FSIA (a) grants foreign sovereigns immunity from criminal actions, and if it does, (b) whether the Section 1605 exceptions apply to both criminal and civil actions.ConclusionThe Supreme Court’s decision will provide clarity on whether and how foreign states or their agencies or instrumentalities are “indictable” in federal court. The Court’s ultimate decision will be of great interest to foreign government-owned institutions, specifically those that conduct USD transactions or have a U.S. nexus. A decision in this case is expected before the Court breaks for its summer recess in July 2023.United States v. Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S., 16 F.4th 336 (2d Cir. 2021), cert. granted, 2022 U.S. Lexis 4151 (U.S. Oct. 3, 2021) (No. 21-1450). Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States (No. 21-1450) at I. 18 U.S.C. § 3231. 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a) (emphasis added). 28 U.S.C. § 1603(a). 28 U.S.C. § 1603(b). 28 U.S.C. § 1604. 28 U.S.C. § 1605. 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2) (emphasis added).Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Turkish Bank Charged in Manhattan Federal Court for Its Participation in a Multibillion-Dollar Iranian Sanctions Evasion Scheme (Oct. 15, 2019).Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Turkish Banker Convicted of Conspiring to Evade U.S. Sanctions Against Iran and Other Offenses (Jan. 3, 2018).Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Turkish Banker Mehmet Hakan Atilla Sentenced to 32 Months for Conspiring to Violate U.S. Sanctions Against Iran and Other Offenses (May 16, 2018).United States v. Halkbank, No. 15-cr-867, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182312, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2020).Id. at *10–12.Id. at *11.Id. at *11–16.United States v. Halkbank,No. 15-cr-867, October 9, 2020 (ECF No. 679) (Notice of Appeal).United States v. Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S., 16 F.4th 336, 347 (2d Cir. 2021) (“We think that the District Court plainly has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal criminal prosecution of Ha

[vii] Verlinden B.V. v. Cent. Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 488 (1983).[viii] 28 U.S.C. § 1604.[ix] 28 U.S.C. §§ 1603(a)-(b).[x] 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3) (“A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case . . . in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue . . .”).[xi] Fed. Republic of Ger. v. Philipp, No. 19-351, slip op. at 5 (U.S. Feb. 3, 2021).

Foreign states are immune from suit in U.S. courts, unless an exception to immunity provided by the FSIA applies. See 28 U.S.C. §§1604, 1605-1607.2See Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428 (1989).

Under the FSIA, a foreign state is immune from the jurisdiction of courts in this country unless one of several enumerated exceptions to immunity applies. 28 U.S.C. §§1604, 1605–1607. If a suit falls within one of these exceptions, FSIA provides for personal jurisdiction “where service has been made under section 1608.”

4 SeeAtkinson v. Inter-American Dev. Bank, 156 F.3d 1335, 1340 (D.C. Cir. 1998), citing letter from Acting Legal Advisor, Dep't of State Jack B. Tate to Attorney General Philip B. Perlman;Jam v. International Finance Corp., 2019 WL 938524, at *3. 5See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1604, 1605(a)(2). 6 Atkinson v. Inter-American Dev. Bank, 156 F.3d 1335 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

Plaintiffs alleged an exception to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act’s (“FSIA”) expropriation exception, which applies, inter alia, to “any case . . . in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are at issue.” 28 U.S.C. §1604. The District Court dismissed in part on jurisdictional grounds, but the D.C. Circuit found that the claim fell within the exception because it was raised in a “nonfrivolous” way.

[4] See Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, May 29, 2003, ¶ 154. [5] See United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States v. Iran) [1980] I.C.J. Rep. 3; Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States) [1996] I.C.J. Rep. 803. [6] See, e.g., Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 330-32 (5th ed. 1998) (discussing international law of sovereign immunity); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1604, 1609 (establishing default rule of sovereign immunity under U.S. law). [7] See the relevant sections of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1605A; the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, 28 U.S.C. § 1610; and the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, 22 U.S.C. § 8772(b). [8] Peterson, et al. v. Bank Markazi, 01-CV-2094 and 01-CV-2684 (D.D.C.), Order, June 6, 2016.

Sachs sued OBB in federal court in the Northern District of California. OBB moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the lawsuit was barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1604, which shields foreign states and their agencies and instrumentalities from suit in United States courts. Sachs responded that her lawsuit fell within the FSIA's commercial-activity exception, which withdraws sovereign immunity where "the action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by [a] foreign state."