Supreme Court appears to side with terrorism victims in arguments on Iran reparations law
The U.S. Supreme Court considered on Wednesday whether Congress violated the separation of powers when it passed a law allowing victims of Iran-sponsored terrorism to seize nearly $2 billion in assets held in the United States by Iran’s central bank.
A lawyer for Bank Markazi, Jeffrey Lamken, said the law focused on a single case in violation of the Constitution, report the New York Times, USA Today and the Washington Post. “Congress enacts laws,” Lamken said. “It doesn’t adjudicate specific cases.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with Lamken’s assertion about a single case. She said there was one docket number, but it represented 19 consolidated cases and thousands of victims.
On the other side, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr suggested such laws put the independence of the judiciary at risk. “There are places in the world where courts function just the way our courts do, except every now and then, when there’s a case that the strongman who runs the country is interested in … he picks up the phone and he tells the court: ‘You decide this case this way.’ … I’m not sure I see what the difference is here.”
Both USA Today and the Washington Post said it appeared from the arguments that the court would rule for the terrorism victims. The case is Bank Markazi v. Peterson.
