Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States
Term: 2022
Important Dates
Argued: January 17, 2023
Decided: April 19, 2023
Outcome
affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part.
Vote
9-0
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Concurring
Neil Gorsuch • Samuel Alito
Dissenting
Neil Gorsuch • Samuel Alito

Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on April 19, 2023, during the court's October 2022-2023 term. It was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 17, 2023, during the court's October 2022-2023 term. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned whether United States district courts have the right to criminally prosecute foreign states and their instrumentalities. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The 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."[1]
  • The outcome: In a unanimous opinion, the court affirmed in part, and vacated and remanded in part, the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, holding that the district court has the authority to rule on this criminal case under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. The Court also affirmed the circuit court’s ruling, but on different grounds.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • April 19, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's ruling.
    • January 17, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • October 03, 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • May 13, 2022:Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S., aka Halkbank, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • October 22, 2021: The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the government's motion to dismiss this appeal, and affirmed the district court's decision to deny Halkbank's motion to dismiss the indictment.

    Background

    In 1976, congress passed the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The law lists exceptions in which foreign states do not have immunity from the jurisdiction of United States courts. These include commercial action instances such as when commercial activity occurs in the United States, activity in the United States related to commercial activity abroad, or actions occurring outside the United States related to commercial activity that directly affects the United States.[2]

    The Turkish government owns and operates Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. (Halkbank), a bank based in Istanbul with no offices in the United States. The U.S. recognizes Halkbank as an agency of Turkey and by the FSIA, defines the bank as a foreign state. Between 2012 and 2016, U.S. sanctions allowed its allies to purchase oil and gas from Iran if the allies stored payment in their own banks and restricted Iran’s use of the payments to a specific set of purposes like humanitarian aid. The Turkish government determined that only Halkbank would store payments for Iran’s oil and gas.[2]

    In October 2019, the U.S. government sued Halkbank in the Southern District of New York. Halkbank moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of having sovereign immunity. Halkbank argued that because it is recognized as a foreign state, the U.S. is not legally allowed to bring criminal charges against it. They also claimed that if FSIA immunity exceptions extend to criminal cases, there are no exceptions that would grant the court jurisdiction to charge them.[2]

    The Southern District of New York denied the motion to dismiss the case and held that sovereign immunity is only applicable to civil cases; foreign sovereigns are therefore tried like private individuals in criminal cases. They also concluded that any immunity would be overridden by the FSIA’s commercial activities exception.[2]

    Regarding district courts' jurisdiction over foreign states, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act states:

    “ 28 U.S.C. § 1330 (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction without regard to amount in controversy of any nonjury civil action against a foreign state as defined in section 1603(a) of this title as to any claim for relief in personam with respect to which the foreign state is not entitled to immunity either under sections 1605-1607 of this title or under any applicable international agreement.(b) Personal jurisdiction over a foreign state shall exist as to every claim for relief over which the district courts have jurisdiction under subsection (a) where service has been made under section 1608 of this title.(c) For purposes of subsection (b), an appearance by a foreign state does not confer personal jurisdiction with respect to any claim for relief not arising out of any transaction or occurrence enumerated in sections 1605-1607 of this title.[3][4] ”

    Second Circuit opinion

    Halkbank appealed the district court's ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On appeal, the court denied the government's motion to dismiss this appeal and affirmed the district court's decision to deny Halkbank's motion to dismiss the indictment.[2]

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the subject of criminal jurisdiction was appealable. The court cited 18 U.S.C. § 3231 which states:

    “ The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States. Nothing in this title shall be held to take away or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of the several States under the laws thereof.[4] ”

    Referencing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess (1989), the Second Circuit acknowledged the SCOTUS’ conclusion that Congress intended for the FSIA to be the only basis for U.S. courts’ jurisdiction over foreign states. But the Second Circuit dismissed that decision, stating that Amerada Hess was a civil case. They also concluded that common law and the FSIA’s exceptions limit foreign states’ sovereign immunity.[2]

    Writing for the majority, Judge Jose Cabranes wrote:[6]

    “ This case presents two questions. First, whether a denial of a motion to dismiss a criminal indictment based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA") is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. Second, whether FSIA confers immunity on foreign sovereigns from criminal prosecutions. We answer the first question in the affirmative. As to the second, we hold that even if we were to assume that FSIA confers immunity in the criminal context, the offense conduct with which Defendant-Appellant Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. ("Halkbank") is charged would fall under the commercial activity exception to FSIA. Accordingly, we DENY the Government's motion to dismiss this appeal, and we AFFIRM the Decision and Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Richard M. Berman, Judge ).[4] ”

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[1]

    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.[4] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[7]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[8]

    Outcome

    In a unanimous opinion, the court affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part, the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, holding that the district court has the authority to rule on this criminal case under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. The Court also affirmed the circuit court’s ruling, but on different grounds than that of the circuit court’s, holding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) does not grant Turkiye Halk Bankasi (Halkbank) immunity because FSIA does not apply to criminal proceedings. Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred in part and dissented in part and Justice Samuel Alito joined his opinion.[6]

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2022-2023

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 3, 2022. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[9]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States:On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit," filed May 13, 2022
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 "U.S. Supreme Court", "Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.Ş., Petitioner, V. United States Of America, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT," filed May 13, 2022
    3. ↑ “Casetext, "28 U.S.C. § 1330,"accessed October 7, 2022
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ “Casetext, "18 U.S.C. § 3231," accessed October 7, 2022
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 “Casetext, "United States v. Bankasi," accessed October 11, 2022 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Opinion" defined multiple times with different content
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued January 17, 2023
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued January 17, 2023
    9. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Turkiye_Halk_Bankasi_A.S._v._United_States&oldid=9474025"