On June 16, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., which could lead to more prolific post-judgment discovery against foreign sovereigns. Lower courts might also interpret the decision as requiring them to show less deference to the executive branch when dealing with matters that implicate foreign relations, and more deference towards a strict interpretation of statutory text. After Argentina defaulted in 2001, it urged bond-holding investors to participate in two debt swaps in 2005 and 2010. While the grand majority of those investors agreed to the debt swaps, and thus received only a portion of the original value of their bonds, a handful of investors did not. Respondent NML Capital, Ltd. is a holder of the original bonds and brought various suits against Argentina in the Southern District of New York. NML Capital prevailed and attempted to obtain post-judgment discovery from two banks which supposedly handle Argentina’s accounts. The district court ruled in favor of NML Capital allowing the discovery. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the district court ruling.

Argentina again appealed and argued that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602 et seq.) (“FSIA”) prevented the kind of broad-sweeping discovery NML Capital was seeking. The United States Government made a similar argument in its amicus brief in support of Argentina.