Question not identified.

No court in history has ever criminally tried the instrumentality of another co -equal sovereign —even in cases involving commercial conduct . And Congress has never seen fit to abrogate the immunities owed instrumentalit ies at common law to allow for that result . This Court confirmed as much when it previously heard this case and held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) , which created exception s to sovereign immunity , “does not apply to ”—and does not limit common -law immunity in —“criminal proceedings.” Pet.App. 58a. The Court remanded th e case to the Second Circuit to consider in full Halkbank’s common -law sovereign immunity arguments. The Second Circuit then held it was required by Second Circuit civil precedents to “defer to the Executive Branch’s determination as to whether a party should be afforded common -law foreign sovereign immunity .” Pet.App.3a. I t also held that the Executive’s determination was “consistent” with the common law of immunity , despite permitting a result —the criminal trial of a foreign sovereign instrumentality —unheard of in world history . Pet.App .5a, 10a . The question s presented are: 1. Whether courts are bound to defer conclusively to the Executive’s common -law foreign sovereign immunity determinations in criminal cases . 2. Whether prosecutors may , consistent with the common law of foreign sovereign immunity, criminal ly prosecute foreign sovereign instrumentalities, including for conduct occurring within their sovereign’s territory.