U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART IV— JURISDICTION AND VENUE › Chapter CHAPTER 97— JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITIES OF FOREIGN STATES

28 U.S.C. § 1609

Immunity from attachment and execution of property of a foreign state

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

Subject to existing international agreements to which the United States is a party at the time of enactment of this Act the property in the United States of a foreign state shall be immune from attachment 11 So in original. Probably should be followed by a comma. arrest 1 and execution except as provided in sections 1610 and 1611 of this chapter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 167 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Peterson v. Islamic Repub. of Iran, 627 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Peterson v. Islamic Repub. of Iran, 627 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “” 28 U.S.C. § 1609 . Thus, the plain language of the statute does not provide a means for the court to address the issue sua sponte.”
Weininger v. Castro, 462 F. Supp. 2d 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). · cites it 4× “See 28 U.S.C. § 1609 ; FG Hemisphere Assocs., LLC v.”
Rubin v. the Islamic Repub. of Iran, 456 F. Supp. 2d 228 (D. Mass. 2006). · cites it 8× “Furthermore, they asserted that even if they did hold any such property, it would be immune from attachment under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, (“FSIA” or “the Act”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1609 , 1610. Rather than responding directly to the motions to quash, 1 the plaintiffs…”
Bennett v. Islamic Repub. of Iran, 817 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 6× “28 U.S.C. § 1609 . In First National City Bank v.”
Peterson v. Islamic Repub. of Iran, 876 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2017). · cites it 3× “See 28 U.S.C. § 1609 (“[T]he property in the United States of a foreign state shali be immune from attachment arrest and execution ,.”
Banco De Seguros Del Estado v. Mut. Marine Off., Inc. & Mt. McKinley Ins. Co., as Successor of the Gibraltar Cas. Co., 344 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “” 28 U.S.C. § 1609 . In Stephens v. Nat’l Distillers and Chem.”
Thai Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co. v. Gov't of the Lao People's Democratic Repub., 924 F. Supp. 2d 508 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). · cites it 2× “On April 4, 2011, Judge Freeman ordered discovery regarding Respondent’s bank accounts (the “April 4 Order”), which Respondent contended were immune from discovery and attachment under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1996 (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1609 -ll. 3 The Court…”
Bennett v. Islamic Repub. of Iran, 825 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “28 U.S.C. § 1609 . In First National City Bank v.”
Susan Weinstein v. Islamic Repub. of Iran, 831 F.3d 470 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “13 Second, it establishes immunity from “attachment^] arrest and execution,” 28 U.S.C. § 1609 . 14 ICANN contends that, because the plaintiffs did not adequately establish an.”
Jenny Rubin v. Islamic Repub. of Iran, 830 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “A foreign state’s property in the United States is immune from attachment and execution, see 28 U.S.C. § 1609 , but there are a few narrow exceptions.”
Walters v. Indus. & Com. Bank of China, 651 F.3d 280 (2d Cir. 2011). “” 8 This language places no limit on the district court’s authority to recognize execution immunity.”
FG Hemisphere Assocs., LLC v. Democratic Repub. of Congo, 447 F.3d 835 (D.C. Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “Some two months later, the DRC filed a Rule 60(b) motion to quash the execution order, arguing, among other things, that its failure to respond earlier was due to “excusable neglect” and that the two properties were immune from execution under 28 U.S.C. § 1609 as “property in…”
Show all 167 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.