Page:Bank Markazi v. Peterson SCOTUS slip opinion.pdf/9

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

BANK MARKAZI v. PETERSON

Opinion of the Court

determine “whether Iran holds equitable title to, or the beneficial interest in, the assets . . . and that no other person possesses a constitutionally protected interest in the assets...under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” §8772(a)(2).

B

Respondents are victims of Iran-sponsored acts of terrorism, their estate representatives, and surviving family members. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 52a–53a; Brief for Respondents 6. Numbering more than 1,000, respondents rank within 16 discrete groups, each of which brought a lawsuit against Iran pursuant to the FSIA’s terrorism exception. App. to Brief for Respondents 1a–2a. All of the suits were filed in United States District Court for the District of Columbia.^[1] Upon finding a clear evidentiary

↑ The 16 judgments include: Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 864 F.Supp. 2d 24 (DC 2012); Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F.Supp. 2d 51 (DC 2010); Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F.Supp. 2d 52 (DC 2010) (granting judgment in consolidation of four actions at issue here: Valore, No. 1:03–cv–01959; Bonk v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 1:08–cv–01273; Spencer v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 1:06–cv–00750; and Arnold v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 1:06–cv–00516); Estate of Brown v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 1:08–cv–00531 (D DC, Feb. 1, 2010); Acosta v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 574 F.Supp. 2d 15 (DC 2008); Beer v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 574 F.Supp. 2d 1 (DC 2008); Kirschenbaum v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 572 F.Supp. 2d 200 (DC 2008); Levin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 529 F.Supp. 2d 1 (DC 2007); Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F.Supp. 2d 229 (DC 2006); Estate of Bland v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 1:05–cv–02124 (D DC, Dec. 6, 2006); Greenbaum v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 451 F.Supp. 2d 90 (DC 2006); Campuzano v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 281 F.Supp. 2d 258 (DC 2003) (awarding judgment in both the Rubin action, Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 1:01–cv–01655, the plaintiffs of which are respondents here, and the Campuzano action, the plaintiffs of which are not); Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 264 F.Supp. 2d 46 (DC 2003). Three additional groups of plaintiffs with claims against Iran were voluntarily dismissed from the instant litiga-

[fn5-1] The 16 judgments include: Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 864 F.Supp. 2d 24 (DC 2012); Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F.Supp. 2d 51 (DC 2010); Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F.Supp. 2d 52 (DC 2010) (granting judgment in consolidation of four actions at issue here: Valore, No. 1:03–cv–01959; Bonk v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 1:08–cv–01273; Spencer v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 1:06–cv–00750; and Arnold v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 1:06–cv–00516); Estate of Brown v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 1:08–cv–00531 (D DC, Feb. 1, 2010); Acosta v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 574 F.Supp. 2d 15 (DC 2008); Beer v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 574 F.Supp. 2d 1 (DC 2008); Kirschenbaum v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 572 F.Supp. 2d 200 (DC 2008); Levin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 529 F.Supp. 2d 1 (DC 2007); Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F.Supp. 2d 229 (DC 2006); Estate of Bland v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 1:05–cv–02124 (D DC, Dec. 6, 2006); Greenbaum v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 451 F.Supp. 2d 90 (DC 2006); Campuzano v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 281 F.Supp. 2d 258 (DC 2003) (awarding judgment in both the Rubin action, Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 1:01–cv–01655, the plaintiffs of which are respondents here, and the Campuzano action, the plaintiffs of which are not); Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 264 F.Supp. 2d 46 (DC 2003). Three additional groups of plaintiffs with claims against Iran were voluntarily dismissed from the instant litiga-

[1]