That key question now goes back to a lower court for decision.
The Americans who filed the suit want the Persian antiquities in the Chicago museums to pay damages for victims of a 1997 suicide bombing in Israel that has been attributed to the Islamic Republic.
The decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago overturns a lower court ruling on two points.
On the first point, Iran initially ignored demands that it appear in US courts to assert its sovereign rights. But the lower court judge ruled that the University of Chicago could not assert sovereign rights for Iran; Iran had to do that itself. The Islamic Republic then hired an American lawyer to represent its interests. The appeals court said the lower court wrongly denied Iran its sovereign immunity, which the appellate judges said is presumed and did not need to be asserted in court by Iran.
On the second point, the ruling voided the lower court’s order that all Iranian assets in the United States be disclosed to the plaintiffs, thus making it easier for them to go after those assets.
The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings “consistent with this opinion.”
The US plaintiffs are searching for any and all Iranian assets in the United States to pay a $71.5 million judgment against Iran.
The case grew out of a September 1997 triple suicide bombing at a Jerusalem mall that killed five people and injured 200. Two members of the Islamist group Hamas were convicted.
The lawsuit, filed by five groups of Americans who were either seriously wounded or relatives of the injured, argued Iran bore responsibility because it provided training and support to Hamas for the attacks.
Having won their case that Iran was at fault, the plaintiffs embarked on a search for Iranian assets to pay the $71.5 million judgment. They found collections of ancient Persian artifacts—prehistoric pottery, ornaments, and precious tablets with Elamite writing—on loan from Iran to Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History and the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute.
The museums argued the artifacts qualified for immunity under US law and could not be used to pay the judgment. They said seizing the artifacts would set a dangerous precedent for institutions who rely on scholarly interest to trump political and legal disputes.
But the plaintiffs insisted the artifacts were fair game, arguing US legal protections afforded to foreign-owned property do not apply when the property is used for commercial purposes, or when it belongs to an agent linked to a terrorist group.
That issue—the core issue in the case—remains to be decided in the trial court.
