The Supreme Court today affirmed, by a 7-2 vote, a judgment originally from Judge Forrest (see our coverage here) concluding that a law pertaining to the seizure of Iranian assets was not, as the defendants contended, effectively a direction to decide a single pending case in one side’s favor, in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. In short, the law stated that, if Iran owned certain assets, the victims of Iran-sponsored terrorism could execute on those assets.
Judge Forrest found that the law did not “usurp the adjudicative function” because it still left “plenty for this Court to adjudicate,” such as whether Iran owned the assets or whether any third parties had an interest in the assets. The Supreme Court agreed that, while the law may have “changed the law by establishing new substantive standards,” it “entrust[ed] to the District Court application of those standards to the facts (contested or uncontested) found by the court,” and was thereby consistent with the separation of powers.
Prior posts on the case are here.