The US Supreme Court Tuesday heard oral arguments in Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, a case which will determine if US district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions of foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities. First docketed May 17, 2022, the case originated from the criminal prosecution of the Turkish state-owned bank HalkBank by the US for its alleged involvement in aiding Iran to evade financial sanctions.

During oral arguments, counsel of record for Halkbank Lisa Blatt repeatedly emphasized the potential consequences that could arise if the prosecution was allowed to proceed. Deputy Solicitor General Eric Feigin spoke on behalf of the US and referenced that the plain text of the relevant statutes supported his argument.

In a brief to the Court, the United States’ case against Halkbank presents two separate legal arguments. The first is that district courts have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the prosecution because “the district courts jurisdiction over ‘all offenses against the laws of the United States’ encompasses the offenses alleged.” The second is that nothing in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act nor the common law immunizes Halkbank against criminal prosecution.

In response, Halkbank argues that Congress did not grant in the relevant statute, and has never historically granted, criminal jurisdiction over foreign sovereigns, and that Halkbank falls under this classification. The Turkish state-owned commercial bank alleges that the United States “government wants this case to be the worlds first [criminal trial of a foreign-sovereign instrumentality].”