On April 20, 2016, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not exceed its legislative powers allowing victims of terrorism access to frozen Iranian assets in Bank Markazi v. Petersen. A group of plaintiffs brought a wrongful death action in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for acts of terrorism sponsored by Iran in the 1983 bombings in Beirut, Lebanon. While the case was ongoing, Congress passed the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act in 2012. The Act includes a section allowing access to $2 billion of frozen Iranian funds kept in a New York bank account by Bank Markazi (Central Bank of Iran) “in order to satisfy any judgment to the extent of any compensatory damages awarded against Iran for damages for personal injury or death caused by” certain acts of terrorism. The Second Circuit relied on the new legislation and found for the U.S. families. The Iranian government brought the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the new legislation allowed Congress to usurp judicial authority violating separation of powers. The Court held that the federal statute does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, even if it directs a particular result in a single pending case. The Court reasoned that Congress may require “a court to apply a new legal standard in a pending prejudgment enforcement proceeding” and the statute was a valid exercise of Congressional authority regarding foreign affairs. The Court affirmed the judgment by a six-to-two majority in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, which Justice Sotomayor joined.