States Petition Supreme Court for Frozen Afghan Assets
Thirty state attorneys general have asked the Supreme Court to allow the use of frozen Afghan bank funds to pay 9/11 victims.
Updated on Oct. 6, 2026 in Law
Live Poll
Should frozen assets from foreign central banks be used to pay court-ordered compensation to US citizens?
Attorneys general from 30 U.S. states have filed a brief with the Supreme Court seeking to access $3.5 billion in frozen Afghan central bank assets. They aim to use these funds to satisfy nearly $17 billion in court-ordered compensation for 9/11 victims and their families.
Why it matters
The petition challenges a previous ruling by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which barred the use of these frozen assets for compensation awards. The states argue that existing U.S. law allows for the seizure of these funds to satisfy judgments held by terror victims.
Thirty state attorneys general have officially petitioned the Supreme Court to review the status of $3.5 billion in frozen assets. This legal push follows a prior court ruling that prohibited the use of these funds for compensation.
The players
US Supreme Court
This is the highest judicial body in the United States and has the authority to decide whether to hear appeals from lower federal courts.
Da Afghanistan Bank
This entity serves as the central bank of Afghanistan and holds the $3.5 billion in assets currently frozen by the U.S. Treasury.
US Second Circuit Court of Appeals
This federal court previously ruled that the frozen Afghan assets could not be used to satisfy the compensation judgments awarded to 9/11 victims.
The details
The U.S. Treasury Department originally froze the Afghan central bank assets in August 2021, just days before the return of the Islamic Emirate to power. Victims and their families have successfully secured nearly $17 billion in total judgments against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks in federal court.
Timeline
The U.S. Treasury Department froze the central bank assets in August 2021.
The Iowa Attorney General announced the filing of the brief on October 5, 2026.
Political Context
Opponents of the move, including international legal experts and humanitarian organizations, argue that seizing the assets of a central bank could violate long-standing protections under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Critics also warn that such seizures risk destabilizing global diplomatic relations and financial norms.
This case creates a significant legal precedent for how future court judgments involving foreign assets may be enforced by state authorities. Depending on the Supreme Court's decision, it could either open a new path for victim compensation or reinforce current barriers against accessing foreign government funds.
The takeaway
The outcome of this petition will clarify whether U.S. state governments can successfully override previous appellate court rulings to seize assets held by foreign central banks. It highlights the ongoing tension between domestic victim compensation efforts and established international financial sovereignty.
Further reading
For broader legal context, see our latest coverage on Law.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Ariana News.
Live Poll
Should frozen assets from foreign central banks be used to pay court-ordered compensation to US citizens?
