Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States
In brief
The Supreme Court rejected Halkbank’s FSIA argument, but left common-law immunity open and sent the case back to the Second Circuit (remanded) rather than ending the case.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 7-2 · April 19, 2023 · Opinion by Justice Kavanaugh
- What it’s about
- Turkiye Halk Bankasi, a Turkish state-owned bank, was indicted for participating in a money-laundering scheme to evade U.S. sanctions against Iran.
- Who it affects
- The federal trial court has authority to hear the case under §3231, and the FSIA’s civil-case rules do not govern criminal prosecutions. Whether common-law immunity (immunity based on court-developed rules) protects Halkbank remains unresolved.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court ruled that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not protect foreign states and their instrumentalities from criminal prosecution in U.S. courts, though common-law immunity issues remain to be decided.
The decision separates the FSIA’s rules for civil lawsuits against foreign states and their state-owned entities from immunity questions in criminal cases.
Question presented
1. Whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) renders foreign states and their instrumentalities immune from criminal prosecution. 2. Whether the FSIA is the exclusive source of jurisdiction over foreign states and their instrumentalities, such that a court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a foreign state or its instrumentality in a criminal case under 18 U.S.C. § 3231.
What the Court decided
Holding
1. The District Court has jurisdiction under §3231 over this criminal prosecution of Halkbank. Section 3231 grants district courts original jurisdiction of “all offenses against the laws of the United States,” and Halkbank does not dispute that §3231’s text as written encompasses the charged offenses. Halkbank instead argues that because §3231 does not mention foreign states or their instrumentalities, §3231 implicitly excludes them. The Court declines to graft such an atextual limitation onto §3231’s broad jurisdictional grant. 2. The FSIA’s comprehensive scheme governing claims of immunity in civil actions against foreign states and their instrumentalities does not cover criminal cases. 3. The Second Circuit did not fully consider various common-law immunity arguments that the parties raise in this Court. The Court vacates the judgment and remands for the Second Circuit to consider those arguments. 16 F. 4th 336, affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part.
- Result
- Vacated
The vote
From the opinions
“The same statute we routinely use to analyze sovereign immunity in civil cases applies equally in criminal ones.”
What's next
The Second Circuit must consider the common-law immunity arguments that the Supreme Court said it had not fully addressed. Until that review, the remaining immunity arguments are unresolved.
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
New analysis added
Show 7 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
Opinion added: Opinion
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Petition
Court Order added: Lower Court Orders/Opinions
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court decide about Halkbank’s criminal prosecution?
- It decided that §3231 gives the federal trial court authority to hear the case. It also said the FSIA’s civil-case immunity rules do not cover criminal prosecutions.
- Was the FSIA the exclusive source of immunity in Halkbank’s criminal case?
- No. The Court said the FSIA covers civil cases, not criminal cases, so court-developed immunity arguments remain for the Second Circuit.
- What remains unresolved for Halkbank?
- The Court did not decide whether common-law immunity—rules developed by courts—protects Halkbank. The Second Circuit must consider those arguments.
- What happens next for Halkbank in Turkiye Halkbank v. United States?
- The Second Circuit will consider the common-law immunity arguments the Supreme Court said it had not fully addressed. The case is not finally settled.
- How did the justices divide in this case?
- Justice Kavanaugh wrote the Court’s opinion; Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson signed on to it. Justices Gorsuch and Alito wrote separately, agreeing in part and disagreeing in part.
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.