Mixed reactions to Halkbank case

In the US Supreme Court, some US judges argued that US federal courts cannot prosecute foreign governments and companies owned by those governments. Judge Brett Kavanaugh argued that obstructing prosecution could erode the US president’s power to make national security decisions Halkbank’s appeal, in which he argued that it cannot be tried by US courts, was heard on Tuesday at the US Supreme Court. According to Bloomberg, Halkbank received mixed reactions from US Supreme Court judges about its argument. Some judges questioned Halkbank’s argument that US federal courts cannot prosecute foreign governments and companies owned by those governments. Judge Brett Kavanaugh, appointed by Donald Trump, argued that obstructing prosecution could erode the US president’s power to make national security decisions. Kavanaugh also said, “This is a negotiation that is being conducted at the highest level between the United States and Turkey. This case appears to be part of that negotiation. What kind of expertise do we have to balance all of those factors?” He made his assessment. On the other hand, Kavanaugh was among the judges who thought that the New York appeals court did not sufficiently evaluate Halkbank’s “sovereign immunity” argument. According to Bloomberg, the fact that some judges held this view indicated the possibility of the case being sent back to the lower appeals court in New York to decide whether the prosecution should continue. The judge objected to Halkbank’s lawyer’s argument. During the hearing, Halkbank lawyer Lisa Blatt stated that bringing a criminal case against another country was unprecedented in history. Blatt also argued that the US Foreign State Immunities Act of 1976 did not give the courts the right to prosecute states. Both of these arguments were met with objections from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Jackson said, “I do not think Congress focused on immunity from criminal prosecution when it enacted this law.” Deputy Attorney General Eric Feigin, speaking on behalf of the US government, also argued that the law in question did not apply to criminal prosecutions.