Bank Markazi v Peterson (US Supreme Court, 2016)

Bank Markazi v Peterson, decided by the United States Supreme Court on 20 April 2016, upheld application of 22 USC section 8772 to identified Iranian assets in a specific enforcement proceeding. The judgment is relevant to asset-based Economic statecraft, but it is not a general licence to confiscate foreign central-bank reserves.

Holding

Victims holding terrorism judgments against Iran sought execution against assets associated with Bank Markazi and held through a New York intermediary. Congress enacted section 8772 while the litigation was pending. The statute identified the covered assets and directed that they be available for satisfaction of specified judgments if the court made prescribed findings.

The Court rejected Bank Markazi's separation-of-powers challenge. It held that Congress had changed the governing law rather than impermissibly commanding a result under old law. The decision worked alongside exceptions and execution rules connected to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (United States, 1976). Its narrow setting, statutory text, identified assets and required judicial findings matter.

Boundaries

The case concerned section 8772 and domestic execution. It did not decide that all central-bank property is unprotected, authorise executive taking without legislation or resolve international-law questions for every reserve asset. Unlike the United States freeze of Iranian government assets during the hostage crisis (1979-1981), which arose from the hostage crisis and executive blocking authority, Peterson involved terrorism judgments, identified assets and a later execution statute.

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (United States, 1976) remains part of that authority-specific analysis; the judgment did not erase the Act's general structure.

The International Court of Justice's 2023 ICJ Certain Iranian Assets (2023) judgment addressed treaty claims and expressly treated Bank Markazi issues within its own jurisdictional framework. It should not be presented as the same holding. Proposals for Central-bank reserve immobilisation and confiscation must therefore specify the asset, jurisdiction, immunity rule, statutory authority and procedural route rather than citing Peterson as a universal precedent.

Sources

• Supreme Court docket 14-770, accessed 30 July 2026.
• 22 USC section 8772, accessed 30 July 2026.
• ICJ, *Certain Iranian Assets*, judgment, 30 March 2023.
• Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 USC chapter 97, accessed 30 July 2026.