Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran
333 F.3d 228, 357 U.S. App. D.C. 107, 56 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 257 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Neither a treaty nor an executive agreement will be considered abrogated or modified by a later statute unless Congress's purpose to do so has been clearly and explicitly expressed in the enacted statutory language, rather than merely in legislative history or joint explanatory statements.
Facts:
- In 1979, American nationals were taken hostage in Iran and held for 444 days.
- To secure the hostages' release, the United States entered into the Algiers Accords with Iran on January 19, 1980.
- The Algiers Accords included a provision by which the United States agreed to “bar and preclude the prosecution against Iran of any claim of a United States national arising out of the events related to the seizure and subsequent detention of the hostages.”
- Presidents Carter and Reagan issued executive orders and regulations implementing the claims-barring provision of the Algiers Accords.
- Former hostages and their family members (plaintiffs) filed a class action lawsuit against the Islamic Republic of Iran and its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- While the plaintiffs' case was pending in the district court, Congress passed two appropriations bills containing amendments (Subsection 626(c) and Section 208) that specifically referenced the plaintiffs' lawsuit and created an exception to Iran's sovereign immunity for this case only, by deeming the 'state sponsor of terrorism' requirement satisfied.
- The joint explanatory statements accompanying these amendments contained language suggesting Congress's intent that the judgment in this case should stand, 'notwithstanding any other authority,' which plaintiffs argued abrogated the Algiers Accords.
Procedural Posture:
- Former American hostages and their families previously attempted to sue Iran, but their claims were dismissed because Congress had not waived Iran's sovereign immunity.
- Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against the Islamic Republic of Iran and its Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
- Iran did not appear to defend the action, and the District Court entered a default judgment on liability against Iran on August 13, 2001.
- The District Court scheduled a trial to hear evidence on damages.
- The U.S. State Department attempted to intervene, move to vacate the default judgment, and dismiss the suit, arguing that the Algiers Accords prohibited such claims and that the court lacked jurisdiction.
- The District Court proceeded with the damages trial, hearing testimony from the plaintiffs.
- After the U.S. government's motion to intervene, Congress passed an appropriations bill with Subsection 626(c) amending the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to specifically address this case, followed by Section 208 which corrected a technical error in the previous amendment.
- The District Court, after considering the impact of the appropriations riders and the Algiers Accords, dismissed the action for failure to state a claim, concluding that neither the legislative nor executive branch had clearly abrogated the Accords.
- Plaintiffs appealed the District Court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does subsequent legislation that removes a foreign state's sovereign immunity for a specific pending case, when accompanied by legislative history that purports to explain an intent to abrogate an executive agreement, constitute a clear expression of congressional intent sufficient to abrogate that executive agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Randolph, Circuit Judge
No, legislation that removes a foreign state's sovereign immunity for a specific case, even when accompanied by legislative history purporting an intent to abrogate an executive agreement, does not clearly express congressional intent sufficient to abrogate that agreement if the enacted statutory language itself is silent on abrogation. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that the Algiers Accords remained binding because Congress had not clearly expressed an intent to abrogate them within the enacted statutory text. The court reasoned that while the President has clear authority to settle claims through executive agreements, and Congress can abrogate such agreements, abrogation requires a “clear expression” from Congress in the enacted legislation itself. The statutory amendments passed by Congress merely created an exception to Iran’s sovereign immunity for this specific case by addressing a technical requirement of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA); they did not, on their face, mention or abrogate the Algiers Accords. The court emphasized that the joint explanatory statements (legislative history) on which plaintiffs relied, though suggesting a desire to allow the judgment to stand, do not have the force of law because Congress votes only on the legislative text (the conference report), not on the explanatory statements. The court reiterated that legislative history alone cannot abrogate a treaty or executive agreement when the legislation itself is silent, especially when the explanatory statements go beyond explaining the actual text of the amendment. The court noted that courts consistently require clear statements from Congress for fundamental legal changes, such as waiving sovereign immunity, and this principle extends to abrogating international agreements. The court also held that the United States properly intervened to uphold its obligations under the Algiers Accords and that Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs is considered the 'foreign state' itself for FSIA purposes.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the critical distinction between enacted statutory text and legislative history, particularly concerning the abrogation of international agreements. It establishes a high bar—the 'clear statement rule'—for Congress to modify or repeal treaties or executive agreements, thereby upholding principles of separation of powers and judicial deference to the political branches in foreign affairs. The ruling ensures that significant foreign policy shifts are made through deliberate legislative action rather than implied intent, providing greater stability and predictability in international relations. It also clarifies intervention standards for the U.S. government when its international obligations are at stake and reiterates the classification of governmental entities under the FSIA.
