we'll hear argument first this morning in case fourteen seven seventy bank markazi versus peterson mr lam no your honor it is not a consolidation of one thousand cases it began when the peterson point is filed to turn over action other parties were entered pleated other parties intervened but it has been one case with one caption ruled on by one judge with one yes they'd specifies them by number and so find number we believe that the result would be the same that congress crosses the threshold from legislation to adjudication when it attempts to pass a law which has no effect and no existence apart from specify cases pending the terrorists and that and not in this package one thousand i don't know whether there are any others that where they were denied intervention here but the point i think there's a fundamental point is that no future case that's identically situated no other case except this one case will be subject this will what effect one thousand cases mr lamb can and congress and i say fight them all i think the answer would be the same would be the same specifies them i mean congress is specify one hundred congress because i think i think it would be when congress is not willing to make the law operable generally two categories of cases but singles out particular pending cases to alter the course of  proceedings the use of the case name and or the number in the statute that is the offending characteristic i imagine that he a creative draft or could draft a statute that makes no reference to a particular case or two particular cases but could put so many limitations on the scope of the law that in fact it applies only to one case or to a small number of cases  exactly the wants the congress wants to target congress does that is a different right i think your honor if congress so limits and so cabin's it that in effect it has limited the law to one and one case only it's in explicable except as an effort to limit it to one case one which in which or court had come to a surprise decision which shortened what everybody thought had been the statute of limitations for certain securities actions congress passed a law trying to reverse our decision it said anybody who had filed the security action prior to the date of this decision would be allowed to refile and proceed to judgment we went through a lot of trouble to say that congress can't do that because it is reversing the outcome of a court judgment it would have been so easy to decide that case by saying my lord  it's just referring to particular cases will in fact the statue at issue and plow it and that that reversed lamp was a generally applicable case to all pending cases its problem was it went too far and addressed cases which had gone final and this cases includes the power to conclusively decide them and so it went too far but it was a generally operable statute to all pending cases this is the exact opposite in fact if this suit were dismissed on a technicality and identically situated plaintiffs filed a new one or these plaintiffs filed a new one and it got an different caption eighty seven seventy two would not apply one about a robinson case to the case involving the timber yes so robertson is also a generally applicable statute that statute said that for the five statutory provisions they were at issue in the cases you could comply with those or you could comply with two new provisions and that would be sufficient for the timber harvesting but that statutes that were the basis of the suit and in fact through subsection g of that statute specifically contemplated additional suits challenging timber harvesting and the new rule which said subsection b three and b five are good enough you don't have to comply with the other five statutes would apply to those new lawsuits as well we do you get the notion that the congress can only act by generality it acts all the time on individual matters i mean it certainly you know grants certain privileges and certain monies on the basis of individual cases but justice scalia our principle is not that congress can't act on a single bridge a single parcel of land a single set of presidential papers is that congress cannot limit its legislation to one and one only one case such that it dictates the white one and so so long as it is not overturning a judgment that the you know how many cases i've written so long as it doesn't overturn the judgment of the court you have to be relying on the fact that it cannot act individually is it magic that it that the individual ised law that it and acts happens to affect a particular case what was said and i think the principle is not whether it happens to affect a particular case congress can regularly often probable come to congress as attention because of cases and it man act a law even thinking about that case but what congress can't do is limit its law so that it applies to that case in that case on powers yes and article three because it's the role of the courts to decide individual cases what do we do about all of the what used to be when i worked in the senate judiciary committee every year we would get dozens maybe hundreds i passed dozens of private billed for one person and moreover at least some of them to my recollection involve that one person saying i tried to sue maybe the case is still there but i was met with the statute of limitations defense for example i'd like the money right think and we'd vote yes give him the money he deserves and if he does and i think the history of private bills actually proves our point because the private bills the vast majority as you point out don't affect a specified case at all they just simply say you're entitled to your eyes or incinerating the ones that exactly and in the context of suits against the government the traditional context the government has the federal government has expansive authority to waive its defenses to relinquish its claims to expand or contract  b and give it to private a might for example take property without due process it might violate some other provisions but if it doesn't violate some other provision what in the perp in the separation of powers unsaid principles distinguishes i think tween taking ten dollars from the government and giving it to the private person or taking ten dollars from joe smith and giving it to the private person assuming there's nothing unfair about setting aside other constitutional provisions just as prior the difference is this congress has full power to waive the united states defenses to relinquish its quite own claims to report since the defense happened to be worked in obs cure a provision in a court of claims act that the government through congress had once put in and they decided it would be unfair to apply it now to person and so they repeal it in respect to that person and there's never going to be another like him ok don't play what i don't want you to do is play on the potential unfairness because there are other parts of the constitution there assume it's fair to do that but stopped i think the answer is when it comes to deciding individual cases particular individual cases between private parties that is the domain of the courts and not congress or congress  it the day before a lawsuit was filed in other words congress knows that a lawsuit is going to be filed on a particular subject and just creates the rule for that lawsuit but the lawsuit hadn't actually been commenced yet so long as this law is of yes from the time of the framing state courts with comparable cost to sions repeatedly concluded that it violates separation of powers for their legislatures to enact a law which had effect of one case and one case only and that included for example cases like one vs james and james jones versus perry and the point of the matter is and the holding for those cases is congress or in that case the state legislature crosses a line from legislation when instead of an acting a law that has  and act general laws and i just don't agree with it yeah well just as glad to be clear our principle is not that it can ask must act general laws in the sense that you can't law an act a law for one bridge or one parcel of land or one set of assets is that it cannot and that something acts on one case in one case only purports to have no effect no i don't know i'm sorry ok but even if there's i mean even if one were to disagree with me and think that all the verses james and eight hundred twelve massachusetts supreme court got it wrong even if one were to disagree in this start i don't understand the fixation on how many cases we're talking about i thought i mean i understand the argument but at least i think perhaps the more significant concern is what congress is doing in that one case which is you have a body of law that tells you when you can attach funds when you can't and instead of letting the court decide that congress comes along and says those funds can be attached they could do that in two cases they could do it in ten they could do it in every case involving iran that doesn't seem terribly significant to me would seem significant is what they were doing in that case i think that was certainly exacerbates the problem when congress does not release a new law for this particular case but says new law plaintiffs when that is certainly certainly across the line and that is a fact of it congress did hear not to go on that said the plaintiffs are able to attach these assets if two conditions are met but those conditions were clearly met before the law was enacted there was only one possible outcome based on what you've said this morning i don't really understand me the limiting principle of your argument you've said that the number of cases is not determinative there could be a great many cases and you've said that the naming of a particular of the cases isn't significant and it may might not even be significant whether the case has been filed yet so if you put all that together what is the principle but you also i think for this case the court need only will because there's never been was an arguable and it wasn't argued in the brief in opposition that this is anything but one case the court could rule simply that when congress singles out one case and one case only that crosses the line but that are being that are some of them that are and then that's why you've been saying that the number doesn't matter and it doesn't matter whether it's the day before or the day after says and it doesn't matter if congress has specified the docket number because any of those limitations he would say well congress could do you know pretty much the exact same thing except it would be in two cases where except it would be without the docket number and your answer is suggest how you know a little bit nonsensical those distinctions would be but let me explain why i wouldn't be concerned and then give you the principle that would govern the meaning cases i would not be concerned about the limiting principle here because congress for two hundred years didn't get near this line because states for almost two hundred years have had the exact same principles and yet there's no history no debate no series of cases determining to cart did their legislatures cross the line the rule that i would give to a address that is simply put if it's not listing particular cases then congress isn't going to cross the line so long as it doesn't dictate the outcome for a set of cases where there is will be one liable party and it's unwilling and it's willing to make it all perspective in effect but if congress dictates the outcome and there's only one liable defendant and congress is unwilling to make that perspective that's dictating out some kinds of cases it is not legislation as we understand it the framing generation certainly understood that that something that purported to act on one case and one case only or a handful of specified cases crossed the line from legislation to judicial decision making and violated are in violated the separation of powers that this court likewise should understand that when that this is in the area of foreign affairs i had thought that our cases were pretty clear that the political branches especially the executive so i can see that there's a difference there but that the political branches have a great deal of power in this area even when it comes to very particular controversies and i think the government's examples prove exactly why congress crossed the line here and i'm going to start with sovereign immunity for history of the executive determining sovereign immunity in the courts universally respecting it and that's because sovereign immunity was a matter of comedy grace in international politics and the courts would respect the executives determinations because they did not want to embarrass the executive or create an international incident by assuming jurisdiction of the executive told them not to but state law and the u c c are not matters of race comedy and national politics they are matters of law for the courts to decide well for heck it would never happen they are when executive branch would submit to the courts a suggestion of state law because foreign affairs principles were an issue and expect to see a suggestion i could suggestion of state law as opposed to a suggestion immunity because the state law is something that has existence apart from what the executive believes the right to state law is what would apply for a house in the absence of a congressional statute so the president goes to congress and says what i would like is you to agree with me about this we've frozen fourteen billion dollars worth of assets of a country with which we are not friendly there are some people who would like some of that money we would like to take the assets which are currently being held on the fourteenth floor of the howard building in chicago and use that why we want to use that because we've worked out that that's the best way to pay people we think should be deserving money and we don't care about the foreign country  respect of those that are foreign relations are such that we don't want to get the others involved what's wrong with that just bar if i understand the hypothetical the executive authority to implement the law in the hypothetical is meant to say just what justice kennedy brought up which is the president particularly when he acts together with congress is given the foreign affairs power to a very great extent of the united states of america that foreign affairs power could often involve for reasons of foreign policy unfreezing a refrigerator and not unfreezing the stove so i don't know foreign affairs but i do know that the president together with congress certainly must have very broad power to decide what assets shall or shall not be kept frozen and not froze so if the president were given the power to confiscate and distribute these assets which frankly he has not if you were given that power that would exacerbate the separation of powers problem because the executive branch of the political branches should take accountability for seizing the assets confiscating them distribute but they had not attempt to give it an air of judicial agenda mysie by commandeering one case in one case only suppose i carry out suppose iran were holding a great many american hostages and iran said we'll release these hostages if you stop execution in a suit like this and suppose congress thought that that was a good deal and and and and and said exactly that but and that is the other authority that the federal government invokes which is this court has said is very circumscribed which is the claim settlement authority which is the government can sell over claims of its own nationals if there is an international agreement or quarrel which it is attempting to implement but you can't extrapolate from that to the ability to settle the claims eliminate the claims of defenses of the foreign national when there is no settlement agreement or anything of that sort this is unprecedented in foreign relations otherwise for  statute to say in this case and this is not all right there is a understood that answer in the games you're you're you're suggesting that of congress has a good reason to extinguish these claims then you can do it but if not not no i think the answer is th is say this case this case only no other case because that's just not law that's unusual your didn't answer seemed to be that if the president does something the he has more power more authority than when the president acting with congress does something i would think would be just the opposite well you know i think the the difficult if the congress delegates the power to the president that would be one thing if congress for example sovereign immunity in hit two hundred years there's no incident that i know of where congress has said in this case in this case only we have determined whether there should be sovereign immunity typically that is i assume that the president signed this legislation this this wasn't a veto override no the president signed a very large piece of legislation which included this piece of it but i think the point the matter nationals but this is an effort to change the law in favor of its own nationals when there is no international settlement that circumscribe authority doesn't apply well they're not supposed to congo the executive and the president of the term and that if you have this legislation then a settlement will be easier down the road we're going to flex their muscle we're going to bring these people to bargain and we can't do that if they want to act on the assets if they want to act on anything a particular race that is one thing but it is you mr chief justice and may it please the court mr lampoons entire case is summed up by that one single pending case i counted over twenty five times that that phrase appeared in petitioners brief now i hear today that it's not one case it's it could be multiple cases it's a particular outcome at the particular property  what congress did in section eight seven seven two is act pursuant to its core constitutional authority by legislating changes in substantive laws and petition admits multiple times in its brief at page twenty six twenty seven fifty two fifty three and in reply brief pages three fives eighteen that substantive law was changed in this case and the substantive law that was changed by congress respected the execution of assets of a foreign sovereign judgment debtor the judiciary determined in one thousand cases that there was a liability in these cases by clear and convincing evidence that iran sponsored terrorist acts while the issue doesn't have to do with liability it has to do with the authority to execute yes cases when which liability was determined damages were determined and then consolidated for the purpose of mexico suppose it were one case suppose there were two pending cases private person private jones versus smith two separate cases under federal law where there's a statute of limitations could congress say in the jones worse a smith the statue the limitations here by repeating yes you're right yes and i think this is the ploughed case to scalia you know that without case was a judge with an alternate judgment after the fact this is before the cases of resolved the legislation in the plot case involved specific handing pieces of litigation some of which had not been  reduced to a judgment some of them had been reduced to a judgment but that judgment had not been final in the sense that the appeals were not exhausted and one case in which the appeals had been exhausted and that judgment was final this court found that that violated the separation of powers but that that change of the statute of limitations and the opinion for the court in that case by justice scalia points out specifically that congress can legislate to change an element of a cause of action to change a rule of evidence that's an impediment to the plaintiff recovering and can change the statute of limitations and in footnote nine of that case the court points out there's nothing there's no problem with  one otherwise that the case of this thing occur in your view they can do that yes i in my view and my opponent does not dispute the fact that congress can change the rule of decision five changing principles of equal protection for that vote if mr olson congress passed a law that said if there were a lot of challenges to the statutory interpretation under a particular statute say the health care act and it said in any case involving a challenge to the statutory interpretation of the secretary of h h s of that act once it finds jurisdiction the court will enter judgment agreeing with the secretary i somewhat closer to the klein case where the court was talking about an area where the supreme court this court in the in the mcardle case and the other cases mentioned in that in that decision where that were congress was directing a result that was inconsistent with decisions that this court had already made with respect to the pardon power so well well but i mean this court has a lot of the solutions about how to interpret statutes and what congress is saying in my hypothetical is well that's good for you we want you to adopt the secretary's interpretation in every case involving in pending cases that would be much like the roberts case where there were two pending cases involving property out by saying that you're saying it's ok i'm saying that it's ok i believe it's ok under the circumstances because what the this court said and robertson in a unanimous opinion was that that that the type of legislation is to the extent it is changing the underline substantive law that is permissible congress may do that now but the if there was it's a little surprising you know other words congress can pass a statute and then say whenever the statutory for petition for the executive branch is challenged you court will enter judgment in favor of the secretary well i think that there are hypothetical included two components one where the congress of the united states passed a statute saying that hereinafter this particular law will be interpreted in this particular way that is a change in substantive law which in the miller case in a particular way they don't care they don't think this clause ought to be interpreted this way they're just saying whenever it's challenged you court adopt the secretary's interpretation then we don't know what the interpretation is going to be we just trust the sec well carry more than we try to courts unfortunately i guess some whites say that congress does that all the time by providing a clear the court has issued its decision saying it agrees with the plaintiff's interpretation but the mandate hasn't issued yet and congress has boy we don't like that decision they pass a law saying in that case this is the interpretation you should adopt and i believe that as long as that case is pending and is not final the plough case and the statute of limitations we don't like congress doesn't like the interpretation or the application of them to their statute of limitations congress can say we're changing the statue of limitations in a sense by saying just as you said when you don't say we're changing what we say we want you to enter judgment in this case in favor of the second well i think that have now moved it further to the point where the congress is directing with respect to a particular case the outcome between a and b but to the extent and this is robertson so the extent and that argument was made and that argument was sort of adopted in the ninth circuit but this court unanimously it reversed the ninth circuit in that case the same essentially the same argument was made if you look at the briefs and look at the robertson decision the same argument was made there that was being made here and it just so you understand what i'm concerned about you know there are places in the world where courts function just the way our courts do except every now and then when there's a case that the the strong man who runs the country is interested in because of cronies one of the parties or whatever and he picks up the phone and tells the court you decide this case this way and i don't care what you thought the law was decided this way yes i'm not sure i see what the difference is here well i do  respectfully feel that there are many differences here what congress did and my opponent concedes that the substantive law of foreign sovereign immunity from execution was changed substantively and what you said in the mi case and repeating what was said in the robertson in the ploughed case is that if the substantive law is being changed there's no problem under klein there's not a separation of problem a separation of powers problem and so to the extent that and i agree with you that this where the judicial function was first of all to decide liability in individual cases and liability was determined by clear and convincing evidence that the government of iran sponsored terrorism that killed and maimed american and the example that i thought of is imaginary this as the c as a rule and it says winning plaintiff in that can be five case cannot attach constitutional i think not why not that presents more significant difficulties that are closer to the line the church and the chief justice what pursuing what were to the extent that did the extent that this is robertson that to the extent that that court can and can can and interpret that under these circumstances the law with respect to attach meaning attaching the tried shall coleman in assets will be dots and that's the interpretation that this court or another court can give to it where you think it's closer to the line line that's what we're trying to ask the line of directing the outcome in a particular case with respect and this is klein where that where this supreme court was was directing the outcome of the interpretation on the war congress was directing the interpretation of the meaning and significance given to a pardon where the court had already decided in a final decision what the outcome of that spendthrift dress and that's all good since it doesn't work for the future doesn't work elsewhere for the past it works for this case welcome i've got might violate several things but i want to know what and does it violate something and does it violate this principle that they are bringing up about not deciding for a particular case well and i think there is no not deciding for a particular case principle embedded in the separation of powers concept there is an instruction to the judiciary to decide a case a certain way that the court talked about in the plow case but that is not involved and that the court in in that footnote to which i referred said that there is no constitutional impediment to congress legislating for a class of what now can i do this then i say perhaps a case i just gave you spendthrift trust legislation for this one pleaded maybe they can't do that but if we're talking about spendthrift process in iran they can't because that's the foreign affairs power and because the president and congress both agree that that's an appropriate exercise of the foreign affairs power yes and that's i think the government will address that in more detail but that's we we did discuss in our brief that the power of the president and this is that this is the power of the president and congress working together congress passed the statute the president signed the statute the president blocked the assets by the way these assets are in the united states illegally there's already been fines imposed with respect to the laundry of these funds that put them in the united states this is a case involving the execution of assets of a foreign sovereign in the united states there you could hardly imagine a case where the where the power of the executive and congress working together with respect to foreign policy and terrorism has a role and i suppose i suppose this applies to us as well right congress can tell us how to rule on cases pending before us you know they have a committee every year at the start of the term they say well what cases are up there they they read the br they will we think this one should come out this way they pass along telling us in case number fifteen one eighty five the supreme court will enter judgment or you know more specifically directed to the pending matter i don't i think that there is probably a point where that if the congress is directing the court to decide a case a certain way irrespective and what you said in the miller case it doesn't have to say that the petitioner wins it sees what the question presented is and then they say in any case in which and then read the question presented you can attach the funds or you can recognize puerto rico as a sovereign or whatever other whatever else they came mr chief justice what you said in miller quoting the robertson case and quoting the plow cases whatever the precise scope of klein because i think that's what you're referring to later decisions have made clear that it's prohibition does not take hold when congress amends applicable law just under the straight separation of powers of the big that would be adjudicated and if congress said smith wins in this case i think that unless the court feels that as a result what congress is really doing is changing the underlyin statute the substantive provision that ordains that result if you like i was giving a simple head that i thought that you would already answered this but maybe not congress just says we see this case smith versus john smith wins i agree with you but that's no good agreement for what we agree with that that that it would implicate concerns about separation of powers a direct in a judgment but to be so so if that's right now congress takes a look at this case and says we can't just say smith wins and then we just we take a look at the case and we say oh if you just tweak the law in this particular way smith would win so we treat the law in this particular way for this case only we don't say smith wins we just say w issue has arisen in this case whether or not this in this and in that case case number fourteen whatever the answer is this now it makes it clear that smith wins but they don't just say that they say you're arguing this in this case in this case you have to rule in favor of smith and then the judge you have in order to win you have to have a statue of limitations that comes out this way and we are legislating with respect of these sets of this set of circumstance says that the statue of limitations will be different and that is plot case and all the discord has to do is sign on the dotted line congress has made a determination by using its power that change something that would that will affect the outcome of a case every time congress passes a statute it substantive law and if that is the import of justice kagan's question which i take it to be that is within congress power there's no limiting principle we heard today on the single pending case was out that was mentioned twenty five times and petitioner briefed went out the window now it can be what two cases nine cases seven cases what is the limiting principle here there are limiting principles in the constitution specific provisions but we're talking about separation of powers and what this core is said repeatedly is if the legislation can be interpreted as changing the underlying substantive ah that is not it that when the rich particularized or not and even if it's a legitimate class of one as that footnote and  name a particular case and say for purposes of well if you're the law will be i was single case where congress has ever done that you know what i would say your honor is that congress does all the time with respect to particularized legislation favoring a particular individual or not to favor in a particular enjoyable and it can't be a constitutional principle that if you put a case name in in the change of the law all of a sudden it becomes unconstitutional or you can do it today but you can't do it tomorrow because someone filed a lawsuit thank you coun neither mr chief justice and may it please the court this court has held since the days of the schooner peggy that congress made amend the law and make an applicable to pending cases and the court must give effect to that law that is what congress did here and after the district court made the determination as the trigger of the application of this law and usually when we say that we're talking about amending the law that has effect beyond that particular pending case and there we say yes absolutely congress can amend the and congress knew that it would affect these pending cases no problem because congress passed something you know that was within the scope of its legislative powers to amend law affecting this case and others when you take out the and others that seems to create a different kind of problem one where congress is doing our job rather than its own i think not justice kagan and there are several important principles underlying that one the footnote nine in this court's decision in clout said that there that imposing individual duties or liabilities want a particular person in other words a particular law private law there is no limitation on that in the u s constitution council for partition or has mentioned various state law all decisions that had said special bills are not permitted this court's decision and power mino distinguishes those cases and said yes some state constitutions that but the federal constitution as a matter of separation of powers has no limitation on special laws there may be equal protection issues bill of attainder issues or special article one powers like bankruptcy where there where there's a uniformity clause and you can have a spate statute affecting a particular case or dispute the second point is if congress is able to legislate with respect to a specific dispute and it's done for example with respect to rile road labor disputes in the main central case and this court's decision  burlington northern mentioned there were congress there's a labor dispute congress comes along and prescribes the results of that dispute that's a specific law it it's ok it can't it can't be rendered unconstitutional just because there happens to be a suit pending about it mr do you do you agree with what mr olson said that congress can't just pick the winner in a particular sit congress can't say smith wins in this case absolutely the straightforward principle is whether congress is amending the law or whether congress eight in reading the result under exhibit a question that i gave mr olson and i say i'm searching here for an answer is is what happens if rather than just picking the winner congress  way as to only this case in such a way that it's absolutely clear that the effect of that will be typical winner i think of congress's amending the law it can do that and look for example in the schooner peggotty which  involved an international treaty in the core of foreign relations and that's another reason why what congress did here i think the court should owe special deference to but in the schooner peggy if there had been only one show that was a treaty that required each party the united states and france to restore ships to the other nation there was a pending price case if there had been only one ship seized in the in the united states we we don't think any principle in article three would prohibit given that i get your  there's a difference between amending the law and directing a result in the same case that seems to me different from what mr olson was arguing no i think what is the principle that would prohibit directing the result in a specific case a separation of powers principle yes so we are talking to so if we interpret this matter before worse as directing a result in a particular case the petitioners would prevail if it's directing a result under preexisting law without an amendment if the court and tirpitz the law that way then then you would be correct but congress amended the l are you're quite articulate i'm not sure i follow well all of a sudden we've find that there is a separation of powers principle but you cannot direct a result in a particular case it seems to me that's inconsistent with the argument that you colleague mr olson was making no i think what client what klein has come to be understood to stand for is congress can't directly result in a case without changing the law in other words congress comes along congress comes along and says you should find  they change the law for this particular case it is still an amendment of the law whether it's for a particular case or a when i find that animal very distinct you're saying congress has to be cute about it they can't say smith wins but they can say in the case of jones versus smith where the critical issue is this we can change that in a way so smith wins and don't worry about the longevity because it's just this case but it's just a cute way of saying if when it's i don't think that's fair mr chief justice because of congress if specificity is not a problem before a lawsuit is filed it doesn't become a problem when it comes to the problem with respect it becomes a problem because our job is to decide cases and before a lawsuit is filed there's no case but when there is a case article three says that's our job their job is to pass laws our job is to cite a case when there's an spewed under one of the laws they passed that's our job but congress has amended the law by making assets attach attachable if you want to be cute congress has four thousand ways of being and i can't quite see this court trying to police those ways and congress and indeed i think i'm right in saying that we had hundreds of private bills that were written in all kinds of ways and were to and if it individuals and some of them might have been subject to cases and others not the unusual thing about this case is it refers to a particular docket number it refers to the assets in can anyone join that is to say if a person today or if there is some person who has the appropriate judgment and antiterrorism judgment against iraq are they perfectly free to join into this case under the statute they would be but i thought if i could just say what's what's also critical about this case is the foreign relations context in which it arises this this court has recognized for example the ability of the executive to suggest immunity or non immunity in individual cases for sar foreign sovereign immunity those are case specific determinations and they affect the case they may require dismissal of a case just like the schooner peg different than the chief justice's example because what can congress change the law and it did not report to direct the result under existing law it changed the law a foreign sovereign immunity by removing a possible defense that central bank funds were not subject to attachment it changed the law by overriding state or only in this case yes but but only the sovereign but as long as congress is amending the law there is not a separation of powers problem maybe an equal protection problem there may be a bill of attainder problem something like that but in terms in terms of the judicial function the judicial function is the same whether the law is general or whether the law is particular can can we can we would this resolved the case correctly in your view when you were side really to say whatever the general principle is this is a case which is against you it refers to a case by number the statute before you use the fact that anyone can join and there are hundreds or dozens of such plaintiffs and moreover on the other side it refers to one point seven five billion dollars worth of assets in all kinds of different securities and obligations and now perhaps in cash being held in new york so whatever we're talking about the number suggests a particular case the facts of the case suggest far more generality than is true of most cases and that is certainly is that true or not that  certainly true in this case it's a pool of assets that are under this court's decision and aims and more emphasizes the need for congress and the president to be able to take hold of assets whether it's a small amount or not for two principal reasons to use as a bargaining chip and also to compensate people who may be entered and and frankly also to sanction this law does both of those things it the freezing of these assets is a bargaining chip and you don't have to bargain on a pay all your chips at one time a bargaining chip may mean you want to use the port one bargaining chip one set of assets this time and hold off on the other ones the executive and president and congress need great flexibility in the area of national of national affairs position on that that that refers to trey and there are a number of issues that were briefed in the court of appeals on on that question so we have not taken a position on that here we're here to defend this act of congress which we think congress an acted to address this particular dispute and if if a pending lawsuit would prohibit would would interfere with the flexibility of the executive and congress to solve a dispute by disposing of assets to pay particular judgments that's exactly what the court feared in games and more the pending lawsuits just because one happens to be pending rather than the law or the executive order being adopted before a lawsuit should not be able to tie up the federal government control or not thank you and thank you counsel mr lamb can you have six minutes remaining thank you i'd like to begin by going back in history to answer justice kennedy's question about a law that says we're going to lift the statue limitations one plaintiff and one plaintiff only and nobody else and the answer to that is early in the nation's history state court after state court said you cannot do that it violates separation of powers and the amazing part is not just what those courts held but there is no case that can be cited by anyone saying that that is actually consistent with separation of powers from early in the framing much less a law that goes further and effectively says that not only can lift the statue of the patients but we're going to change the laws in this case one case plaintiff wins and defendant loses that is completely foreign to our legal traditions is completely foreign to history and for two hundred years congress never once an act of a law like that that reticence would be amazing if it were not but the fact that congress understood that that was constitutionally prohibited well could it be that congress just thinks that's very unfair and that's why they haven't done it that is one but it could have been the same thing implying that for two hundred years congress thought it was unfair to get rid of a final judgment and eliminate repos but the fact of the matter is that the fact that it's also unfair the fact that there may be individual liberty guarantee is associated with it doesn't mean it's not a separation of powers problem because separation of powers protects this court it doesn't and it does when it does so it also has the effect of guaranteeing fairness and individual liberties is the protection of the judiciary rather than providing a certain element of equal treatment for the people who are the litigants in the case with think it would be the opposite i in this case i think it is the rule of law and the and congress gives the executive authority or itself goes through and says we think these people should have this we think they should have you know the other thing i mean maybe it violates equal protection maybe it violates due process depending on how they do it but in principle what's wrong with exercising the foreign affairs power in that way if the political branches give that power to the president that only exacerbates the separation of powers problems with doing it this way because they can do that and they accept the accountability that goes with it but they cannot try to give it an air of judicial and genesee by instead taking commandeering one case pending before the court in a mechanical change that i was in one case or seventeen cases or thirty four cases where this what is your position my position is at least for one case among case only like this one it isn't costa to seventeen would be ok the only the limiting principle i would put on if it dictates the outcome and there's a limited category case i'm going to single out a limited limited category so hundred cases single to a limited category single defendant who dictates the outcome has to be i want to make it not willing to make it there are a hundred different defendants it's case and actually enacting law and when congress goes across the line and says this is the outcome what do you mean by that phrase i mean when the congress enact a law there's only one conceivable result and that is exactly this case when congress enact a law there was one possible outcome and that sort of law which is in this one case here is going to be the result is entirely for that kind of law that the framers railed against and the separation of powers was meant to get rid of issue for the court on remand it's not within the question presented wasn't decided by the court below involves complex questions of state law that are important and where the court hasn't heard from the securities bar which would be affected so that is something that would be definitely be an issue for a rematch but when it