A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation should domesticate and recognize judgments issued by United States courts on behalf of United States victims of terrorism, and that the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs should cease its political interference with Italy's independent judiciary, which it carries out in the interests of state sponsors of terrorism such as the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. (text of measure as introduced: CR S5177)

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 14, 2016

Expresses the sense of Congress that:

Italy has violated the principle of reciprocity governing the mutual recognition of domestic court awards between Italy and the United States;

the intervention by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on behalf of Iran against victims of Iranian terrorism was initiated to the detriment of both United States and European Union terrorism victims; and

the European Court of Human Rights should overturn the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation's erroneous rulings in Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran and Eisenfeld v. Islamic Republic of Iran and order such court to recognize the U.S. judgments held by the Flatow, Duker, and Eisenfeld families against Iran.

Read the summary on Congress.gov

PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

People & committees

Who introduced it

Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT] · D–CT

Committees

Foreign Relations Committee

3 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Legislative record

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

Jul 14, 2016
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. (text of measure as introduced: CR S5177)
Jul 14, 2016
Introduced in Senate

Primary sources

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Introduced in Senate · Jul 14, 2016 Formatted Text PDF Formatted XML

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Jan 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

AI Conversation Starters

Explore the bill from different angles

Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze S.Con.Res.48 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss S.Con.Res.48, 114th Congress: A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation should domesticate and recognize judgments issued by United States courts on behalf of United States victims of terrorism, and that the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs should cease its political interference with Italy's independent judiciary, which it carries out in the interests of state sponsors of terrorism such as the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-concurrent-resolution/48

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 2016-07-14.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/sconres48/BILLS-114sconres48is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-14T19:00:46Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Analyze S.Con.Res.48 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine S.Con.Res.48 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss S.Con.Res.48, 114th Congress: A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation should domesticate and recognize judgments issued by United States courts on behalf of United States victims of terrorism, and that the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs should cease its political interference with Italy's independent judiciary, which it carries out in the interests of state sponsors of terrorism such as the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-concurrent-resolution/48

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 2016-07-14.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/sconres48/BILLS-114sconres48is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-14T19:00:46Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine S.Con.Res.48 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine S.Con.Res.48 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss S.Con.Res.48, 114th Congress: A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation should domesticate and recognize judgments issued by United States courts on behalf of United States victims of terrorism, and that the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs should cease its political interference with Italy's independent judiciary, which it carries out in the interests of state sponsors of terrorism such as the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-concurrent-resolution/48

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 2016-07-14.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/sconres48/BILLS-114sconres48is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-14T19:00:46Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine S.Con.Res.48 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine S.Con.Res.48 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss S.Con.Res.48, 114th Congress: A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation should domesticate and recognize judgments issued by United States courts on behalf of United States victims of terrorism, and that the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs should cease its political interference with Italy's independent judiciary, which it carries out in the interests of state sponsors of terrorism such as the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-concurrent-resolution/48

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 2016-07-14.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/sconres48/BILLS-114sconres48is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-14T19:00:46Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine S.Con.Res.48 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.