Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1450_5468.pdf
Page Number: 21

2 

TURKIYE HALK BANKASI A. S. v. UNITED STATES 

GORSUCH, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part
Opinion of GORSUCH, J. 

without regard to the nature of the defendant; nor are we
free  to  “graft  an  atextual  limitation  onto”  the  law  that
would exempt foreign sovereigns from its reach.  Ante, at 3. 
Of course, Türkiye Halk Bankasi (Halkbank) asserts that it
is  a  sovereign  entity  and,  as  such,  enjoys  immunity  from 
prosecution.  But that does not change a thing.  Generally,
questions about sovereign immunity do not go to a court’s
subject-matter  jurisdiction  (something  a  court  must  con-
sider in every case even if the parties do not).  Instead, ques-
tions of sovereign immunity usually go to a court’s personal 
jurisdiction over a particular defendant.  And as with other 
personal-jurisdiction  defenses,  a  sovereign  may  waive  its
immunity and consent to judicial proceedings if it wishes.
See PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, 594 U. S. ___, ___ 
(2021) (GORSUCH, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 2). 

From that common ground, however, I part ways with the
Court.  Like the Second Circuit, I would analyze Halkbank’s 
assertion  of  sovereign  immunity  under  the  terms  of  the 
FSIA.  Start  with  28  U. S. C.  §1604,  which  sets  forth  the 
FSIA’s general immunity rule.  It provides in relevant part 
that “a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction 
of the courts of the United States and of the States except 
as provided in sections 1605 to 1607 of this chapter.”  Else-
where,  the  statute  defines  a  “foreign  state”  to  include  an 
“agency  or  instrumentality  of  a  foreign  state.”    §1603(a). 
And the statute defines an “agency or instrumentality” to
include any “separate legal person,” such as a corporation, 
that is an “organ” or “subdivision” of a foreign state and ma-
jority owned by a foreign state.  §1603(b)(1)–(2).

Applying those rules here yields a ready answer.  Halk-
bank is a corporation that is majority-owned by the govern-
ment of Turkey.  16 F. 4th 336, 349 (CA2 2021).  Accord-
ingly,  it  qualifies  as  a  foreign  state  entitled  to  immunity 
from suit under §1604 unless one of the exceptions provided 
in §§1605–1607 applies.  And, it turns out, one such excep-
tion does apply.  Section 1605(a)(2) instructs that a foreign