Connection lost
Server error
Bank Markazi v. Peterson Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Congress passed a law making specific assets of Iran’s central bank available to satisfy terrorism judgments in a single, pending court case. The Supreme Court upheld the law, finding it a permissible change in substantive law, not an unconstitutional legislative usurpation of the judicial power.
Legal Significance: The case clarifies that Congress may enact highly specific, outcome-determinative legislation for pending cases without violating the separation of powers, provided it changes the underlying substantive law rather than directing a judicial finding under old law, especially in the realm of foreign affairs.
Bank Markazi v. Peterson Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Over 1,000 victims of Iran-sponsored terrorism (Respondents) obtained default judgments against Iran totaling billions of dollars. To enforce these judgments, they initiated a consolidated turnover proceeding in the Southern District of New York, seeking approximately $1.75 billion in bond assets allegedly owned by Bank Markazi, Iran’s central bank (Petitioner). While this litigation was pending, Bank Markazi raised numerous defenses under federal and state law, including sovereign immunity. In response, Congress enacted the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012. Section 502 of the Act, codified at 22 U.S.C. § 8772, specifically identified the assets at issue in the pending case (by docket number) and provided that they “shall be subject to execution” to satisfy the judgments. The statute made execution contingent on the court finding that Iran held equitable title to the assets and that no other person had a constitutionally protected interest. Bank Markazi challenged the statute, arguing it violated the separation of powers by legislatively directing a judgment in a pending case.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a statute that identifies specific assets in a pending case and alters the law to make them available for execution to satisfy judgments in that case violate the separation of powers by usurping the judicial function under Article III?
No. The Court held that § 8772 is a constitutional exercise of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a statute that identifies specific assets in a pending case and alters the law to make them available for execution to satisfy judgments in that case violate the separation of powers by usurping the judicial function under Article III?
Conclusion
The decision affirms Congress's broad power to enact highly specific, retroactive legislation Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud ex
Legal Rule
Congress does not violate the separation of powers when it amends applicable Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proide
Legal Analysis
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, held that § 8772 Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est labor
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A federal statute that makes specific assets available for execution in