Owens v. Taliban
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-01949
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Owens v. Taliban, Judge Caproni invited the United States to address whether foreign-immunity law blocks confirming an asset-attachment order.
The order concerns the plaintiffs seeking to preserve assets, the Taliban, Da Afghanistan Bank’s assets held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Federal Reserve, and the United States, which was invited to submit a statement of interest.
What happened
In Owens v. Taliban, victims and family members of victims of the 1998 terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies sued the Taliban and sought to preserve assets held for Da Afghanistan Bank at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The court had previously granted an emergency attachment of those assets and the plaintiffs later asked the court to confirm that attachment.
The Federal Reserve raised questions about whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act protects the foreign central bank’s property. The opinion also noted that the United States had previously expressed the view that Da Afghanistan Bank should be treated as a foreign state under that law.
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered that the United States may submit a statement of interest by February 24, 2023, explaining its position on whether the Act prevents confirmation of the attachment order. The order did not decide whether the attachment would be confirmed.
The detailed version
- Owens v. Taliban · No. 1:22-cv-01949
- Valerie Caproni
- Feb. 3, 2023
Background
Plaintiffs identified in the order as surviving victims, estates of victims who died, and family members of victims of the 1998 terrorist attacks on various U.S. embassies sued the Taliban, also identified as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, for its alleged role in those attacks. They sought a prejudgment attachment of assets held in the name of Da Afghanistan Bank at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. A prejudgment attachment is a court-ordered restraint on property before a final judgment, intended here to preserve the plaintiffs’ ability to collect if they later obtained a judgment.
On March 21, 2022, the court granted the plaintiffs’ emergency motion for attachment. On May 2, 2022, the plaintiffs moved to confirm that attachment. The Federal Reserve submitted a response addressing the possible application of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a federal law governing when foreign states and their property are immune from U.S. lawsuits and enforcement measures. The response focused on the immunity that the Act may provide to foreign central-bank property. The order also noted that the United States had previously expressed the view that Da Afghanistan Bank is an agency or instrumentality of Afghanistan and should be treated as a foreign state under the Act.
Order
The court stated that district courts have broad discretion to allow or deny an amicus curiae appearance, meaning participation by a nonparty that offers information or legal argument relevant to the case. The court ordered that, by February 24, 2023, the United States could, if it wished, submit a statement of interest explaining its position on whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act prevents confirmation of the attachment order. The Clerk was directed to serve the order on the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
This order did not rule on whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act bars confirmation, and it did not confirm or vacate the attachment. It directed that the United States be given an opportunity to state its position before the court addressed the confirmation issue.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.