Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1450_5468.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

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

3 

Syllabus 

view  of  the  exceptions  to  immunity  contained  in  §1605,  which 
Halkbank insists apply exclusively in civil matters.  Halkbank’s §1604
argument reduces to the implausible contention that Congress enacted 
a  statute  focused  entirely  on  civil  actions  and  then  in  one  provision 
that  does  not  mention  criminal  proceedings  somehow  stripped  the 
Executive Branch of all power to bring domestic criminal prosecutions
against  instrumentalities  of  foreign  states.    Nothing  in  the  FSIA 
supports that result.  Pp. 10–12.

(c) Halkbank’s remaining arguments lack merit.  While the Court 
did state in Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. that 
the  FSIA  is  the  “sole  basis  for  obtaining  jurisdiction  over  a  foreign
state in federal court,” 488 U. S. 428, 439, the Court made clear that 
the  FSIA  displaces  general  “grants  of  subject-matter  jurisdiction  in 
Title  28”—that  is,  in  civil  cases  against  foreign  states,  id.,  at  437. 
Halkbank also warns that if the Court concludes that the FSIA does 
not apply in the criminal context, courts and the Executive will lack 
“congressional guidance” as to procedure in criminal cases.  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.    And  in  any  event,  the  Federal  
Rules  of  Criminal  Procedure  would  govern  any  federal  criminal
Finally,  Halkbank  argues  that  U. S.  criminal 
proceedings. 
proceedings  against 
foreign  states  would 
instrumentalities  of 
negatively affect national security and foreign policy.  But the Court 
must interpret the FSIA as written.  And if existing principles do not 
suffice  to  protect  national  security  and  foreign  policy  interests,
Congress and the President may always respond.  Pp. 12–14.

3. The  Second  Circuit  did  not  fully  consider  various  common-law 
immunity arguments that the parties raise in this Court.  The Court 
vacates the judgment and remands for the Second Circuit to consider
those arguments.  Pp. 14–16. 

16 F. 4th 336, affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part. 

KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, 
C. J.,  and  THOMAS,  SOTOMAYOR,  KAGAN,  BARRETT,  and  JACKSON,  JJ., 
joined.  GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting 
in part, in which ALITO, J., joined.