Bank Markazi v. Peterson
In brief
The Supreme Court upheld the law for this case, ruling that it did not violate the Constitution’s division of powers.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 6-2 · April 20, 2016 · Opinion by Justice Ginsburg
- What it’s about
- People holding judgments against Iran sought to use nearly $2 billion in bonds in which Bank Markazi held an interest to collect those judgments.
- Who it affects
- The ruling leaves the law in place for the specific bonds sought by people holding judgments against Iran.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court that the law targeting the assets in this case did not violate the separation of powers.
People holding default judgments against Iran sought to collect them from nearly $2 billion in bonds in Europe in which Bank Markazi, Iran’s central bank, held an interest as part of its foreign-currency reserves.
Congress passed the law while the lawsuit was pending, and it applied to financial assets identified in that one case.
Question presented
Whether §8772 - a statute that effectively directs a particular result in a single pending case - violates the separation of powers.
What the Court decided
Holding
Section 8772 does not violate the separation of powers. Pp. 12– 24. 758 F. 3d 185, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The vote
From the opinions
“Article III of the Constitution commits the power to decide cases to the Judiciary alone.”
What's next
The Second Circuit’s ruling remains in force, governing the dispute over whether the bonds can be used to pay the judgments.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Opinion added: Bank Markazi
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did Chief Justice Roberts argue?
- He argued that Congress changed the rules for one pending case in a way that could determine its outcome, a decision he said the Constitution assigns to courts.
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.