Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1450_5468.pdf
Page Number: 23

4 

TURKIYE HALK BANKASI A. S. v. UNITED STATES 

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

First, the Court points to 28 U. S. C. §1330.  That provi-
sion grants federal courts subject-matter jurisdiction over
civil cases against foreign sovereigns when one of the excep-
tions provided in §§1605–1607 applies.  From this grant of 
civil jurisdiction, the Court reasons, it is a “natural infer-
ence” that §1604’s immunity rule must apply only in civil 
cases.  Ante, at 11.  More naturally, however, it seems to me 
that any inference from §1330 runs the other way.  Section 
1330 shows that when Congress wanted to limit its atten-
tion to civil suits, it knew how to do so.  Section 1604 con-
tains no similar language restricting its scope to civil dis-
putes.  Instead, it speaks far more broadly, holding that a 
foreign state “shall be immune” unless a statutorily speci-
fied exception applies.  Normally, when Congress includes 
limiting  language  in  one  section  of  a  law  but  excludes  it 
from another, we understand the difference in language to
convey a difference in meaning (expressio unius est exclusio 
alterius).  See, e.g., Bittner v. United States, 598 U. S. 85, 
94  (2023);  Department  of  Homeland  Security  v.  MacLean, 
574 U. S. 383, 391 (2015).  The Court’s interpretation of the
FSIA defies this traditional rule of statutory construction.
Today, the Court does to §1604 exactly what it recognizes
we  may  not  do  to  §3231—grafting  an  atextual  limitation 
onto the law’s unambiguous terms (in this instance, adding
a “civil”-only restriction). 

Second, the Court suggests we should read §1604 as af-
fording immunity only in civil cases because §1605’s excep-
tions apply only in civil cases.  Ante, at 11.  But here both 
the  premise  and  the  conclusion  seem  to  me  mistaken.    If 
some of §1605’s exceptions apply only in civil cases, others
speak more expansively.  Take the exception relevant here. 
The  commercial-activities  exception  found  in  §1605(a)(2) 
denies sovereign immunity “in any case . . . in which the ac-
tion is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the 
United States by the foreign state.” (Emphasis added).  No-
where  does  this  exception  distinguish  between  civil  and