Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Jose Duran, Individually and as Representative of a Class of Judgment Creditors of the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos v. United States

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 24-185, 24-186 · judgment August 18, 2025


Certiorari denied · June 29, 2026
Pre-decision estimate: 1% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Questions presented

This proceeding was brought by the United States on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, seeking recognition and enforcement of a Philippine forfeiture judgment. The funds at issue have been at Merrill Lynch in New York since 1972. The funds were deposited in the name of a Panamanian corporation, Arelma, Inc., which was an alter ego of Ferdinand E. Marcos, a former President of the Republic. In an interpleader filed by Merrill Lynch in 2000, a federal court awarded the funds to a Class of 9,539 Filipino human rights victims in partial satisfaction of the Class’s judgment against Marcos. In 2008, this Court reversed that judgment, holding the Republic, which exercised its sovereign immunity, was a required party that could not be joined under Fed. R. Civ. P.

  1. Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851 (2008). In 2009, a Philippine court entered a judgment forfeitting the funds to the Republic. Despite the funds being in custodia legis of a United States federal court, the Philippine court held that it possessed in rem jurisdiction over the funds. The district court held that Philippine law applied, and it was bound by the Philippine court’s conclusion of law as to in rem jurisdiction. The court of appeals affirmed. This proceeding presents the following questions:

  2. Whether recognition of a foreign judgment based on a fictitious assertion of in rem jurisdiction is barred as contrary to fundamental principles of due process?

  3. Whether recognition of the foreign judgment is barred by the Republic’s failure to give notice to the

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Robert A. Swift
Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.

For respondent
D. John Sauer
Solicitor General

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. Jun 29 2026
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Jun 09 2026
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/25/2026.
  3. Jan 15 2026
    Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
  4. Dec 17 2025
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 21, 2026)