In Hegna v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Judge Motz, like the D.C. Circuit, declined to find that Congress has repudiated the Algerian Accords. In this case the plaintiffs, had obtained a default judgment in the amount of $42,000,000 in compensatory damages and $333,000,000 in punitive damages. To try to collect, plaintiffs obtained writs of attachment against two parcels of real property located in Bethesda, Maryland owned by Iran. The Court granted a motion to quash made by the United States.
Judge Motz wraps up his opinion as follows:
Perhaps in enacting TRIA some members of Congress did believe they were subjecting Iranian assets to attachment in terrorism cases. However, the language of section 201 as enacted did not unequivocally accomplish that end. . . . Congress may have skillfully forged a political compromise. But in doing so, it created an ambiguity about the attachability of Iranian assets.
In accordance with precedent established by Chief Justice Marshall in The Charming Betsy almost two hundred years ago, the ambiguity must be construed in a manner consistent with our treaty obligations. That was the proper rule of construction for an honorable young nation facing an uncertain future, and it remains the proper rule of construction for a mature, powerful, and confident republic confronting a hostile and dangerous world. We are a nation of law, ennobled by principle, not a people brutalized by hatred or diminished by those who commit grievous wrongs against us.