Document: 546 U. S. ___ (2006) MINISTRY OF DEFENSE AND SUPPORT FOR THE ARMED FORCES ISLAMIC REPUBLIC IRAN v. DARIUSH ELAHI No. 04-1095. Supreme Court of United States. Decided February 21, 2006. ON PETITION WRIT CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT. PER CURIAM. A private citizen seeks to attach an asset belonging Iran's Ministry Defense in order help satisfy a judgment for money damages. The question raised is whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 (FSIA or Act), 28 U.S. C. §1602 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. III), forbids that attachment. damages consists default against Islamic Republic Iran (for about $300 million) citizen, Dariush Elahi, obtained federal-court lawsuit claiming had murdered his brother. Elahi Iran, 124 F. 2d 97, 103 (DC 2000). arbitration award (against third party), which Switzerland. Support Armed Forces Cubic Systems, Inc., 385 F.3d 1206, 1211 (CA9 2004). asked Federal District Southern California confirm award. 236 1140 (2002). court did so. And then intervened, seeking impose lien upon opposed attachment on ground grants it immunity from such claim. rejected Ministry's defense that, by suing enforce award, waived any immunity. On appeal Ninth Circuit disagreed with waiver. But found different grounda parties not argued. says under certain conditions property "agency instrumentality" foreign government "not . immune attachment" if agency "engaged commercial activity States." §1610(b) (emphasis added). Appeals engages other were satisfied. F.3d, at 1219-1222 (applying §1610(b)(2)). held this section barred assertion Ibid. filed petition certiorari asking us review decision. Solicitor General agrees we should grant writ but limited Question 1, namely "the state stricto sensu, situated States" "immune as provided Act." Pet. Cert. i (citing §§1603(a), 1610(a)). also asks vacate remand case consideration simply "foreign state" (what calls "a sensu") (as held). Brief States Amicus Curiae 15-17. We 1. Act, applies "property state," §1610(a) added), does contain activity" exception described. That only where issue state. Compare ("property instrumentality engaged activity") used difference critical. Moreover, General's view ministry (unlike, say, government-owned enterprise) generally inseparable part itself. 8-11; see Transaero, Inc. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 30 148, 153 (CADC 1994) ("hold[ing] armed forces are rule so closely bound up structure they must all cases be considered `foreign state' itself, rather than separate `agency instrumentality' state"). shall now determine correct status Ministry, address nor argue matter before Circuit. Neither can fault failure. As said, supra, based its denial parties' briefs focused matters relevant here (such waiver question), one exception. footnote Elahi's brief mentioning Act's provision. footnote, however, ask affirmance basis; provide clear notice reply was necessary. Answering Appellee 03-55015 (CA9), p. 45, n. 27 (stating "[i]f [the Ministry] `an state,' Mr. still valid" added)). said free affirm "any supported record." 1219, 15. explain what record might demonstrate integral noted "Elahi appears concede" instrumentality," id., 1218, 13, concession would have come whose position favors. Thus, implicitly concluding within meaning §1610(b), either mistakenly relied respondent could possibly bind petitioner, else erroneously presumed there no distinction between agencies instrumentalities purposes subsection. See §1603(a), (b). Either way, committed error essential favor respondent. Because consider, reasonable opportunity argue, critical legal point mentioned, Circuit, further proceedings consistent opinion. It ordered.

Category: 7