Does the Order Divest the Courts of Jurisdiction?
In Dames & Moore, the Court stressed that the claim suspension order did not “divest the federal court of ‘jurisdiction’ ” — it only imposed a temporary delay while jurisdiction was resolved. So suppose it was decided that the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal did not have jurisdiction over a claim. Then the claim could be brought in U.S. court after all. What about President Bush’s Executive Order? Does it “divest the federal court of jurisdiction,” or not? Arguably, it does, for two reasons. First, while it prohibits the transfer of Iraqi property, just as Reagan’s claim suspension order did, it also goes further — to prohibit process against persons, too. If the products and interests at issue “come within the possession or control of United States persons,” they are protected. When the court can’t hear a suit against a particular person, it has arguably been divested of jurisdiction over that potential defendant. (Indeed, the U.S. Constitution defines some of the Supreme Court’s own orig
