Opinion of Gorsuch, J.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 21–1450
TURKIYE HALK BANKASI A. S., AKA HALKBANK, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
[April 19, 2023]
Justice Gorsuch, with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
For almost a half century, judges have known where to turn for guidance when deciding whether a foreign sovereign is susceptible to suit in an American court: Congress’s directions in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), 28 U. S. C. §1602 et seq. Sometimes the FSIA authorizes American courts to hear cases against foreign sovereigns; sometimes the statute immunizes foreign sovereigns from suit. Today, however, the Court holds that the FSIA’s rules apply only in civil cases. To decide whether a foreign sovereign is susceptible to criminal prosecution, the Court says, federal judges must consult the common law. Respectfully, I disagree. The same statute we routinely use to analyze sovereign immunity in civil cases applies equally in criminal ones.
I
I begin from common ground. Congress has vested federal courts with subject-matter jurisdiction over cases involving “offenses against the laws of the United States.” 18 U. S. C. §3231. The Court holds that this statute permits federal courts to hear cases alleging offenses committed by foreign sovereigns. I agree. As the Court explains, §3231’s language grants subject-matter jurisdiction in broad terms
