In Iranian Funds Case, Justices Ponder Extent Of Congressional Influence The Supreme Court is considering whether legislators can give away Iranian government funds the U.S. controls, providing legal compensation to victims of specific terrorist attacks sponsored by Iran.

Law

In Iranian Funds Case, Justices Ponder Extent Of Congressional Influence

  • Download
  • <iframe src="https://www.npr.org/player/embed/462950424/462950425" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">
  • Transcript

KELLY MCEVERS, HOST:

The litigants in the U.S. Supreme Court today were a remarkable bunch. On one side, there was the Central Bank of Iran. On the other, the victims of Iran-sponsored terrorist attacks going back three decades. The constitutional question was whether Congress, in dealing with both, had infringed on the independence of the federal courts. NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg reports.

NINA TOTENBERG, BYLINE: In 2012, President Obama froze nearly $2 billion that the Iranian Central Bank had concealed illegally in an account in New York. Congress then amended an existing anti-terrorism law to strengthen it. The new law specified those funds were to be used to pay off court judgments finding that Iran was responsible for 19 separate terrorist attacks against Americans around the world. The first of those cases was brought on behalf of the families of 241 American servicemen killed in a 1983 Beirut bombing of the Marine barracks.

PAUL RIVERS: Thirty-three years ago, I was a young 20-year-old Marine. I was blown up in the building and buried alive for two hours.

TOTENBERG: Paul Rivers, now 53, one of the thirty survivors in Beirut, is tired of the decades-long legal battle.

RIVERS: This has been an emotional rollercoaster ride for me because my friends are gone. Iran will continue to fund terrorist activities unless we stand up as Americans and say we're tired of it.

TOTENBERG: Inside the Supreme Court, the debate was not about whether Iran should pay but whether Congress had unconstitutionally infringed on the judiciary's job by directing the final outcome of particular cases, even listing the docket numbers of those cases in the legislation. Lawyer Jeffrey Lamken, representing the Central Bank of Iran, said it didn't matter whether there was one case or 19. Congress had violated the Constitution by enacting a statute for one set of plaintiffs.

Justice Scalia - where do you get the notion that Congress can only act by generality? It acts all the time on individual matters. Lamken insisted, though, that this law is unique, contending that in the rest of the nation's history, Congress had never passed such a statute. Congress crossed the line here, said Lamken, because there's a single defendant - the Central Bank of Iran. Justice Breyer, wryly, a defendant that represents a hundred-million people.

Justice Kagan - don't the political branches - the president and Congress - deserve particular deference in matters of foreign affairs, especially when they act together? No, said Lamken. If you uphold this law, he told the justices, the lesson it teaches is, if you want to win your case in court, don't hire a lawyer; hire a lobbyist.

Chief Justice Roberts seemed to have the same concern when former Solicitor General Ted Olson, whose own wife was killed in 9/11, took to the lectern. You know, said the chief justice, there are places in the world where the courts function just the way our courts do, except every now and then when there's a case the strongman that runs the country is interested in. And he picks up the phone, and he tells the court, you decide this case this way. I'm not sure I see what the difference is here. Olson contended that the lower courts had found Iran liable for damages for its role in these attacks. The only thing this law deals with, he asserted, is executing those judgments - actually getting the money damages.

Chief Justice Roberts - wouldn't your argument mean that Congress can tell us, the Supreme Court, how to rule in a specific case? Justice Kagan picked up that thread when Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler rose to defend the statute. Since 1801, he told the justices, this court has said that Congress may amend the law and make it applicable to pending cases. But, asked Kagan, could Congress, without actually naming the winner, amend the law in such a way that it's clear who will be the winner? Replied Kneedler - Congress can do that. Chief Justice Roberts - you're saying Congress has to be cute about it; they can't say, in Smith versus Jones, Smith wins, but they can change the law to make sure Smith wins. Justice Breyer - Congress has 4,000 ways of being cute, and I can't quite see this court trying to police those ways. Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington.

Copyright © 2016 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.