Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1450_5468.pdf
Page Number: 16

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2023) 

13 

Opinion of the Court 

“grants of subject-matter jurisdiction in Title 28”—that is,
in civil cases against foreign states.  488 U. S., at 437 (citing 
28 U. S. C. §§1331, 1333, 1335, 1337, 1338).  The Court had 
no occasion to consider the FSIA’s implications for Title 18’s
grant  of  criminal  jurisdiction  over  “all”  federal  criminal 
offenses.  18 U. S. C. §3231. 
  At any rate, Amerada Hess’s rationale does not translate 
to  the  criminal  context.    The  Court’s  holding  as  to  the
nonapplicability  of  general  civil  jurisdictional  grants  was
based on the FSIA’s own civil jurisdictional grant and the
“comprehensiveness”  of  the  statutory  scheme  as  to  civil 
matters.  488  U. S.,  at  434–435,  and  n. 3,  437  (citing  28
U. S. C.  §1330(a)).    But  the  FSIA  contains  no  grant  of
criminal  jurisdiction  and  says  nothing  about  criminal 
matters—a  distinct  legal  regime  housed  in  an  entirely
separate title of the U. S. Code.  The FSIA did not implicitly
repeal or modify 18 U. S. C. §3231’s core grant of criminal 
jurisdiction. 

Second, Halkbank warns that courts and the Executive 
will  lack  “congressional  guidance”  as  to  procedure  in 
criminal cases if we conclude that the FSIA does not apply 
in the criminal context.  Brief for Petitioner 37.  But that 
concern  carried  no  weight  in  Samantar,  which  likewise 
deemed  the  FSIA’s  various  procedures  inapplicable  to  a 
specific  category  of  cases—there,  suits  against  foreign
officials. 
In  any  event,  the  Federal  Rules  of  Criminal 
Procedure would govern any federal criminal proceedings.
And  although  Halkbank  argues  that  Congress  would  not 
have  been  “indifferent”  to  criminal  jury  trials  involving
instrumentalities of foreign states, id., at 38, juries already
resolve  similarly  sensitive  cases  against  foreign  officials 
after Samantar. 

Third,  Halkbank  briefly  raises  a  consequentialist 
argument.    According  to  Halkbank,  if  the  FSIA  does  not 
apply to criminal proceedings, then state prosecutors would
also  be  free  to  commence  criminal  proceedings  against