The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's dismissal of a Jordanian business entity's attempt to enforce a $53 million judgment against the Republic of Iraq, ruling that sovereign immunity protections bar the action in U.S. courts.
In *Mohammad Hilmi Nassif & Partners v. Republic of Iraq*, decided Feb. 13, 2026, the three-judge panel unanimously upheld the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia's conclusion that no exception to Iraq's sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applied to the case.
Mohammad Hilmi Nassif & Partners, a Jordanian business entity operating under the tradename Trust World Wide Corp., had sought recognition of the substantial monetary judgment entered by a Jordanian court against Iraq and its Ministry of Industry & Minerals. The company argued that U.S. courts should enforce the foreign judgment despite Iraq's sovereign status.
Senior Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph, writing for the court, emphasized the fundamental principle governing such disputes: "The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in the courts of this country." The court cited the Supreme Court's holding in *Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.* (1989) to reinforce this jurisdictional framework.
The case stems from business dealings that began in the early 1990s when Iraq faced comprehensive international sanctions following the Gulf War. During this period, Nassif supplied Iraq with humanitarian and commercial goods but was unable to receive payment due to the sanctions regime. To address this outstanding debt, Iraq issued a written "Export Commitment Letter" in November 1995.
The agreement provided for settlement of Iraq's debt through the delivery to Nassif of specified quantities of sulfur and other commodities. However, the arrangement apparently failed to resolve the dispute, leading to litigation in Jordanian courts that resulted in the $53 million judgment that Nassif later sought to enforce in the United States.
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, enacted in 1976, provides the exclusive framework for determining when foreign states can be sued in U.S. courts. The law generally grants foreign governments immunity from lawsuits, but includes several specific exceptions, such as cases involving commercial activity, terrorism, or violations of international law.
The district court, after examining the circumstances of the case, concluded that none of these exceptions applied to Iraq's conduct. This determination effectively blocked Nassif's attempt to use U.S. courts to collect on the Jordanian judgment.
On appeal, Nassif was represented by attorneys Rossana Arteaga-Gomez, who argued the case pro hac vice, along with Peter Godwin and Edward D. Gehres. Iraq's legal team included Faisal Zubairi, Creighton R. Magid, and Juan C. Basombrio.
The case was heard by a panel consisting of Circuit Judges Patricia Millett and Neomi Rao, along with Senior Circuit Judge Randolph, who authored the opinion. Oral arguments took place Jan. 16, 2026, with the decision issued less than a month later.
The ruling represents another example of courts strictly interpreting sovereign immunity protections, particularly in cases involving foreign judgments. The FSIA requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that their claims fall within specific statutory exceptions to immunity, and courts have generally been reluctant to expand these exceptions beyond their explicit terms.
For international businesses seeking to collect debts from foreign governments, the decision underscores the challenges inherent in pursuing such claims through the U.S. court system. The ruling suggests that companies may need to rely on diplomatic channels or international arbitration mechanisms to resolve disputes with sovereign entities.
The case also highlights ongoing complications arising from the sanctions regime imposed on Iraq in the 1990s, which disrupted normal commercial relationships and created complex legal issues that continue to emerge in litigation decades later.
While the full text of the circuit court's reasoning was not available, the affirmance indicates that the appeals court agreed with the district court's analysis of the applicable FSIA exceptions. The decision appears to turn on technical questions of statutory interpretation rather than the underlying merits of Nassif's commercial claims against Iraq.
The ruling is final unless Nassif seeks review by the Supreme Court, though the high court accepts only a small percentage of cases for review. The decision effectively ends Nassif's effort to collect the $53 million judgment through U.S. courts, though other enforcement mechanisms may remain available in other jurisdictions.