On January 13, 2016, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the landmark case, Bank Markazi v. Peterson. The case will decide whether American victims of Iranian terrorism are able to seize assets belonging to the Central Bank of Iran in order to collect on judgments won against the state. At stake: the U.S. government's ability to use the economic sanctions to combat the full range of Iranian illicit activities. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a non-partisan, Washington, DC-based think ...
Read More
On January 13, 2016, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the landmark case, Bank Markazi v. Peterson. The case will decide whether American victims of Iranian terrorism are able to seize assets belonging to the Central Bank of Iran in order to collect on judgments won against the state. At stake: the U.S. government's ability to use the economic sanctions to combat the full range of Iranian illicit activities. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a non-partisan, Washington, DC-based think tank, filed an amicus curiae brief analyzing the legal and constitutional principles of the case and explaining the broader foreign policy context. In an introduction to the brief, FDD Executive Director and noted Iran sanctions expert Mark Dubowitz explains that Iran is trying to use the American legal system to undercut the sanctions architecture developed over decades by the U.S. Congress and successive Republican and Democratic administrations. The legal brief and its introduction provide compelling arguments that Iran must be held responsible for its support for global terrorism and that economic tools play a critical role in the America's efforts to combat Iran's violent and destabilizing activities around the world.
Read Less
