| Litigants: | Türkiye Halk Bankası A.Ş. v. United States |
| Arguedate: | January 17 |
| Argueyear: | 2023 |
| Decidedate: | April 19 |
| Decideyear: | 2023 |
| Fullname: | Türkiye Halk Bankası A.Ş. v. United States of America |
| Uspage: | ___ |
| Questionspresented: | Whether U.S. district courts may exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions against foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities under 18 U.S.C. §3231 and in light of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§1330, 1441(d), 1602-1611. |
| Docket: | 21-1450 |
| Oralargument: | https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1450 |
| Opinionannouncement: | https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1450 |
| Majority: | Kavanaugh |
| Joinmajority: | Roberts, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, Jackson |
| Concurrence/Dissent: | Gorsuch |
| Joinconcurrence/Dissent: | Alito |
| Lawsapplied: | Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 |
Türkiye Halk Bankası A.Ş. v. United States, 598 U.S. 264 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the exposure of Turkish state-owned bank Halkbank to prosecution by the Department of Justice under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, and more broadly, the limits imposed by the sovereign immunity doctrine on criminal prosecution.[1] [2] [3]
After an October 2021 ruling by judges José A. Cabranes, Joseph F. Bianco, and Amalya Kearse of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, asking "[w]hether U.S. district courts may exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions against foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities under 18 U.S.C.... and in light of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act".[4]
The governments of Azerbaijan, Pakistan,[5] and Turkey filed amicus briefs in support of Halkbank. Professor Chimene Keitner and Mark B. Feldman filed an amicus brief supporting the government.[6]
Oral argument took place on January 17, 2023. Lisa Blatt argued on behalf of Halkbank.[1] [7] On April 19, 2023, the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit.[8]