MENU

Terrorism

Justice Scalia’s Jurisprudence and National Security - Event Audio/Video

2016 National Lawyers Convention
Bradford R. Clark, Elizabeth Goitein, Adam Klein, Stephen I. Vladeck, Jerry E. Smith November 23, 2016

This panel will consider Justice Scalia's legacy in national security law, revisiting his opinions in major national security cases, including Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Boumediene v. Bush. It will also discuss the influence Justice Scalia's jurisprudence has exerted on national security law more broadly and his views on the role of the courts reviewing national security policy.

This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC.

International & National Security Law: Justice Scalia’s Jurisprudence and National Security
3:15 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Grand Ballroom 

  • Prof. Bradford R. Clark, William Cranch Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School
  • Ms. Elizabeth Goitein, Co-Director, Liberty & National Security Program, Brennan Center for Justice
  • Mr. Adam Klein, Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security
  • Prof. Stephen I. Vladeck, Professor of Law, The University of Texas at Austin School of Law
  • Moderator: Hon. Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

$400 Million to Iran: Ransom or Diplomacy?

Short video featuring Jamil N. Jaffer
Jamil N. Jaffer August 25, 2016

Jamil N. Jaffer explains the legal implications of the US State Department's payment of $400 million to Iran in light of US sanctions against the country. Prof. Jaffer also explores further questions: Was the payment "ransom"? Was it legal? 

Mr. Jaffer is an Adjunct Professor and Director of the Homeland and National Security Law Program at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.

What is the Future of Guantanamo Bay? - Podcast

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
Steven A. Engel, Karen Greenberg May 16, 2016

On his second day in office, President Obama declared that closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility would be among the top priorities of his Administration. Over seven years later, as we near the end of the President's second term, both that goal and the prison remain. The panelists analyzed the chances that President Obama will close Guantanamo Bay and the issues with which a future administration must wrestle, if he does not.

Featuring:

  • Steven A. Engel, Partner, Dechert LLP
  • Karen Greenberg, Director of the Center on National Security, Fordham Law School

Bank Markazi v. Peterson - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 5-16-16 featuring Erik Zimmerman
Erik Zimmerman May 16, 2016

On April 20, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Bank Markazi v. Peterson. The Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 makes a designated set of assets available to satisfy the judgments gained in separate actions by victims of terrorist acts sponsored by Iran. Section 8772(a)(2) of the statute requires a court, before allowing execution against these assets, to determine, inter alia, “whether Iran holds equitable title to, or the beneficial interest in, the assets.” Respondents—more than 1,000 victims of Iran-sponsored acts of terrorism, their estate representatives, and surviving family members—hold judgments against Iran and moved for turnover of about $1.75 billion in bond assets held in a New York bank account allegedly owned by Bank Markazi, the Central Bank of Iran. When respondents invoked §8772, Bank Markazi argued that the statute was unconstitutional, contending that Congress had usurped the judicial role by directing a particular result in a pending enforcement proceeding and thereby violating the separation of powers.  The District Court disagreed and upheld the statute. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, and Bank Markazi took its objection to the U.S. Supreme Court.

By a vote of 6-2, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Second Circuit. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, which held that Section 8772 does not violate the separation of powers. Justice Ginsburg was joined by Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan. Justice Thomas joined the majority opinion in all but Part II-C. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Sotomayor joined.

To discuss the case, we have Erik Zimmerman, who is an attorney at Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, PA.