This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/business/international/lawyer-for-irans-central-bank-faces-skepticism-at-supreme-court.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Lawyer for Iran’s Central Bank Faces Skepticism at Supreme Court Lawyer for Iran’s Central Bank Faces Skepticism at Supreme Court
(about 3 hours later)
WASHINGTON — A lawyer for Iran’s central bank faced skepticism at the Supreme Court on Wednesday as he tried to persuade the justices that his client should not have to pay nearly $2 billion to victims of terrorist attacks. WASHINGTON — A lawyer for Iran’s central bank faced skepticism at the Supreme Court on Wednesday as he tried to persuade the justices that his client should not have to pay nearly $2 billion to victims of terrorist attacks.
The case was brought by the families of Americans killed in terrorist attacks sponsored by Iran, including relatives of those who died in the 1983 Marine Corps barracks bombing in Lebanon. They have won billions of dollars in court judgments against Iran in American courts.The case was brought by the families of Americans killed in terrorist attacks sponsored by Iran, including relatives of those who died in the 1983 Marine Corps barracks bombing in Lebanon. They have won billions of dollars in court judgments against Iran in American courts.
The question in the case, said Theodore B. Olson, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, is whether his clients can collect from assets of the bank held in the United States. American courts, he said, have already determined that “the government of Iran sponsored terrorism that killed and maimed American citizens.”The question in the case, said Theodore B. Olson, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, is whether his clients can collect from assets of the bank held in the United States. American courts, he said, have already determined that “the government of Iran sponsored terrorism that killed and maimed American citizens.”
The plaintiffs seek to collect money from Bank Markazi, Iran’s central bank, relying on a 2012 federal law, the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act, that sought to make the task easier by specifying assets of the bank that could satisfy the plaintiffs’ judgments. The bank says the law violates the Constitution because it is focused on a single case.The plaintiffs seek to collect money from Bank Markazi, Iran’s central bank, relying on a 2012 federal law, the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act, that sought to make the task easier by specifying assets of the bank that could satisfy the plaintiffs’ judgments. The bank says the law violates the Constitution because it is focused on a single case.
The arguments on Wednesday, in Bank Markazi v. Peterson, No. 14-770, took place at a delicate moment in relations between the United States and Iran, coming just months after the two countries signed a nuclear agreement. Several justices said the court should be wary of intruding on judgments made by Congress and the president in the conduct of foreign affairs.The arguments on Wednesday, in Bank Markazi v. Peterson, No. 14-770, took place at a delicate moment in relations between the United States and Iran, coming just months after the two countries signed a nuclear agreement. Several justices said the court should be wary of intruding on judgments made by Congress and the president in the conduct of foreign affairs.
“The political branches have a great deal of power in this area, even when it comes to very particular controversies,” Justice Elena Kagan said.“The political branches have a great deal of power in this area, even when it comes to very particular controversies,” Justice Elena Kagan said.
Jeffrey A. Lamken, the bank’s lawyer, argued that Congress had breached the boundaries of the separation of powers when it enacted the 2012 law, which he said was concerned with “one and only one specified case.”Jeffrey A. Lamken, the bank’s lawyer, argued that Congress had breached the boundaries of the separation of powers when it enacted the 2012 law, which he said was concerned with “one and only one specified case.”
“Congress enacts laws,” Mr. Lamken said. “It doesn’t adjudicate specific cases.”“Congress enacts laws,” Mr. Lamken said. “It doesn’t adjudicate specific cases.”
But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that many cases had been consolidated under a single title and docket number. “There are 19 judgments involving thousands” of victims, she said.But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that many cases had been consolidated under a single title and docket number. “There are 19 judgments involving thousands” of victims, she said.
Justice Antonin Scalia was also unpersuaded. “Where do you get the notion that Congress can only act by generality?” he asked.Justice Antonin Scalia was also unpersuaded. “Where do you get the notion that Congress can only act by generality?” he asked.
Mr. Lamken responded that quite specific laws may be proper if they concern issues like bridges, parcels of land or presidential papers. But he said Congress crossed a constitutional line in directing the outcome of a pending case.Mr. Lamken responded that quite specific laws may be proper if they concern issues like bridges, parcels of land or presidential papers. But he said Congress crossed a constitutional line in directing the outcome of a pending case.
Justice Scalia did not accept the distinction. “Is it magic,” he asked, “that the individualized law that it enacts happens to affect a particular case?”Justice Scalia did not accept the distinction. “Is it magic,” he asked, “that the individualized law that it enacts happens to affect a particular case?”
Several justices said that such laws may raise problems under the Constitution’s equal protection and due process clauses. But they suggested that they did not see the separation-of-powers problem pressed by the bank.Several justices said that such laws may raise problems under the Constitution’s equal protection and due process clauses. But they suggested that they did not see the separation-of-powers problem pressed by the bank.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who is often concerned with the institutional role of the courts, was the leading voice on the other side. “Congress can tell us how to rule in cases pending before us?” he asked skeptically.Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who is often concerned with the institutional role of the courts, was the leading voice on the other side. “Congress can tell us how to rule in cases pending before us?” he asked skeptically.
Edwin S. Kneedler, a lawyer for the federal government, also argued in favor of the plaintiffs. He drew a distinction between laws intended solely to pick a winner in a pending case and ones that change the applicable law, even if only for a pending case.Edwin S. Kneedler, a lawyer for the federal government, also argued in favor of the plaintiffs. He drew a distinction between laws intended solely to pick a winner in a pending case and ones that change the applicable law, even if only for a pending case.
Chief Justice Roberts said that was a distinction without a difference. “You’re saying Congress has to be cute about it,” he said.Chief Justice Roberts said that was a distinction without a difference. “You’re saying Congress has to be cute about it,” he said.
Mr. Kneedler essentially agreed. “As long as Congress is amending the law,” he said, “that is not a separation-of-powers problem.”Mr. Kneedler essentially agreed. “As long as Congress is amending the law,” he said, “that is not a separation-of-powers problem.”
In rebuttal, Mr. Lamken, the bank’s lawyer, said that approach sent a cynical message: “If you want to win your case in court, don’t hire a lawyer. Hire a lobbyist.”In rebuttal, Mr. Lamken, the bank’s lawyer, said that approach sent a cynical message: “If you want to win your case in court, don’t hire a lawyer. Hire a lobbyist.”