Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1450_5468.pdf
Page Number: 12

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

instrumentalities  at  the  time  of  the  FSIA’s  enactment  in 
1976  was  civil,  the  Executive  Branch  occasionally 
attempted to subject foreign-government-owned entities to
federal  criminal  investigation.  See  In re  Grand  Jury 
Investigation of Shipping Industry, 186 F. Supp. 298, 318– 
320 (DC 1960); In re Investigation of World Arrangements, 
13 F. R. D. 280, 288–291 (DC 1952).  Given that history, it 
becomes even more unlikely that Congress sought to codify 
foreign  sovereign  immunity  from  criminal  proceedings 
without saying a word about such proceedings. 

Congress’s  determination  about  the  FSIA’s  precise 
location  within  the  U. S.  Code  bolsters  that  inference. 
Congress expressly decided to house each provision of the 
FSIA  within  Title  28,  which  mostly  concerns  civil 
procedure.  See 90 Stat. 2891.  But the FSIA did not alter 
Title 18, which addresses crimes and criminal procedure. 

Finally,  this  Court’s  decision  in  Samantar  supports  the 
conclusion  that  the  FSIA  does  not  apply  to  criminal 
proceedings. 
In  Samantar,  we  considered  whether  the 
FSIA’s  immunity  provisions  applied  to  a  suit  against  an 
individual  foreign  official  based  on  actions  taken  in  his
official  capacity.    560  U. S.,  at  308.    Analyzing  the  Act’s
“text, purpose, and history,” the Court determined that the 
FSIA’s  “comprehensive  solution  for  suits  against  states” 
does not “exten[d] to suits against individual officials.”  Id., 
at 323, 325. 

As  in  Samantar,  we  conclude  here  that  the  FSIA’s 
provisions concerning suits against foreign states and their
instrumentalities  do  not  extend  to  a  discrete  context—in 
this  case,  criminal  proceedings. 
The  Act’s  “careful 
calibration”  of  jurisdiction,  procedures,  and  remedies  for
civil  litigation  confirms  that  Congress  did  not  “cover”
criminal proceedings.  Id., at 319.  Put simply, immunity in 
criminal  proceedings  “was  not  the  particular  problem  to
which Congress was responding.”  Id., at 323.