Subpoenas for foreign assets
Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital
In brief
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling that NML may seek information about Argentina’s assets abroad, but it did not decide whether those assets can be taken to pay the judgments.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 7-1 · June 16, 2014 · Opinion by Justice Scalia
- What it’s about
- After NML Capital won court judgments against Argentina, it sought bank information about Argentina’s assets abroad; Argentina argued the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) barred the request.
- Who it affects
- The ruling lets NML Capital seek information from banks about Argentina’s foreign assets, but it does not authorize taking those assets to satisfy the judgments.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court rejected that argument, agreeing with the appeals court that the FSIA does not bar requests for information about foreign assets after a judgment; it did not decide whether those assets could be seized.
The FSIA sets limits on when a foreign country’s property can be taken to satisfy a U.S. judgment; this case concerned information about Argentina’s assets abroad.
Question presented
Does a subpoena that requires a bank to disclose information about all assets of a foreign state, without respect to their location or use, violate the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act?
What the Court decided
Holding
No provision in the FSIA immunizes a foreign-sovereign judgment debtor from postjudgment discovery of information concerning its extraterritorial assets. 695 F. 3d 201, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The Court's reasoning
The Court said the FSIA does not shield a foreign state that owes a U.S. judgment from requests for information about assets outside the United States.
The vote
From the opinions
“By what authorization does a court in the United States become a “clearinghouse for information,” ante , at 3 (internal quotation marks omitted), about any and all property held by Argentina abroad?”
What's next
The Supreme Court’s review is complete. Whether particular assets can be taken to pay NML’s judgments remains undecided by this ruling.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Show 4 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Opinion added: NML Capital
More questions
- What did Justice Ginsburg object to?
- She argued that the ruling allowed broad inquiries into Argentina’s property abroad, whether or not it was used for commercial activity.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.