Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1450_5468.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

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

5 

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

criminal actions.  Besides, even if the Court’s premise were
correct  and  §1605’s  exceptions  (somehow)  applied  only  in
civil actions, what would that prove?  It might simply mean
that  Congress  wanted  a  more  generous  immunity  from
criminal proceedings than civil suits.

Finally, the Court points to  the FSIA’s provisions regu-
lating the venue and removal of civil actions against foreign
sovereigns.  Ante, at 7–8 (discussing §§1391(f ) and 1441(d)).
But once more, it seems to me this shows only that Congress 
knew how to speak specifically to civil suits when it wished
to  do  so.  Congress  may  have  had  reason  to  be  especially
concerned about the venue for civil suits too, given that al-
most all efforts to hale foreign sovereigns into U. S. courts
have  involved  civil  claims.  Indeed,  the  parties  and  their 
amici  struggled  to  find  examples  of  criminal  charges 
brought against foreign sovereigns either before or after the 
FSIA’s adoption—not only in the United States, but in any 
country.  Compare Brief for United States 25–26 with Reply 
Brief  7–9.  I  might  be  willing  to  spot  the  Court  that  the 
venue and removal provisions could help illuminate §1604’s 
scope if that statute were ambiguous.  But no one suggests 
that  we  have  anything  like  that  here.  Section  1604  is  as 
clear as a bell and we must abide by its direction that for-
eign  sovereigns  “shall  be  immune”  absent  some  express
statutory exception. 

III 
After declaring that the FSIA applies only to civil suits, 
the Court holds that “the common law” controls the dispo-
sition of any claim of foreign sovereign immunity in crimi-
nal cases.  Ante, at 15.  Yet rather than decide whether the 
common  law  shields  Halkbank  from  this  suit,  the  Court 
shunts  the  case  back  to  the  Second  Circuit  to  figure  that 
out.  All of which leaves litigants and our lower court col-
leagues with an unenviable task, both in this case and oth-
ers  sure  to  emerge.  Many  thorny  questions  lie  down  the