Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran

The case arose from a 1997 Hamas suicide bombing in Jerusalem that killed or injured several Americans. The victims' families, led by Jenny Rubin, obtained a $71.5 million default judgment against Iran under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's terrorism exception. To satisfy the judgment, they sought to attach ancient Persian artifacts—including thousands of clay tablets and fragments held by the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute and the Field Museum. The plaintiffs argued these assets were subject to seizure because Iran used them commercially. Iran asserted sovereign immunity, maintaining the artifacts were used for academic research and public exhibition, not commercial activity. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on February 21, 2018, that the artifacts were immune from attachment, as their scholarly use did not constitute "commercial activity" under the FSIA, thereby blocking enforcement.

The United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the Persian artifacts were not "used for a commercial activity" and therefore retained sovereign immunity from attachment. The victims could not seize the cultural property to execute their terrorism judgment against Iran.

Whether ancient Persian artifacts held by a U.S. university for academic study qualify as property "used for a commercial activity" under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, thereby allowing attachment by victims of state-sponsored terrorism to satisfy a default judgment.

The decision reinforced strong legal protections for foreign cultural property entrusted to U.S. museums and universities, limiting enforcement avenues for terrorism victims. It underscored the tension between compensating victims of state-sponsored violence and safeguarding international cultural heritage, shaping future asset recovery strategies.