Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1450_5468.pdf
Page Number: 18

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

15 

Opinion of the Court 

immunity.  In the context of a civil proceeding, this Court
has recognized that a suit not governed by the FSIA “may
still  be  barred  by  foreign  sovereign  immunity  under  the 
common  law.”  Samantar  v.  Yousuf,  560  U. S.  305,  324 
(2010).  Halkbank maintains that principles of common-law
immunity  preclude  this  criminal  prosecution  even  if  the 
FSIA  does  not.  To  that  end,  Halkbank  contends  that 
common-law-immunity  principles  operate  differently  in
criminal cases than in civil cases.  See Brief for Petitioner 
34–35,  44.  And  Halkbank  argues  that  the  Executive 
Branch 
common-law 
immunity by initiating prosecution.  Id., at 44. 

cannot  unilaterally  abrogate 

The  Government  disagrees.    Reasoning  from  pre-FSIA
history  and  precedent,  the  Government  asserts  that  the
common  law  does  not  provide  for  foreign  sovereign
immunity  when,  as  here,  the  Executive  Branch  has 
commenced a federal criminal prosecution of a commercial 
entity like Halkbank.  See Brief for United States 21.  In 
the  alternative,  the  Government  contends  that  any
common-law immunity in criminal cases would not extend 
to  commercial  activities  such  as  those  undertaken  by
Halkbank.  Id., at 16–21. 

The Court  of Appeals did not fully consider the various 
arguments  regarding  common-law  immunity  that  the
parties press in this Court.  See 16 F. 4th, at 350–351.  Nor 
did  the  Court  of  Appeals  address  whether  and  to  what 
extent  foreign  states  and  their  instrumentalities  are 
differently situated for purposes of common-law immunity
in the criminal context.  We express no view on those issues
and  leave  them  for  the  Court  of  Appeals  to  consider  on
remand.  Cf. Samantar, 560 U. S., at 325–326. 

* 

* 
With respect to the holding of the Court of Appeals that
the District Court has jurisdiction under 18 U. S. C. §3231,
we  affirm.  With  respect  to  the  holding  of  the  Court  of 

*