.[1]* A provision of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, 22 U. S. C. §8772, makes available for postjudgment execution a set of assets held at a New York bank for Bank Markazi, the Central Bank of Iran. The assets would partially satisfy judgments gained in separate actions by over 1,000 victims of terrorist acts sponsored by Iran. The judgments remain unpaid. Section 8772 is an unusual statute: It designates a particular set of assets and renders them available to satisfy the liability and damages judgments underlying a consoli-dated enforcement proceeding that the statute identifies by the District Court’s docket number. The question raised by petitioner Bank Markazi: Does §8772 violate the separation of powers by purporting to change the law for, and directing a particular result in, a single pending case? Section 8772, we hold, does not transgress constraints placed on Congress and the President by the Constitution. The statute, we point out, is not fairly portrayed as a “one-case-only regime.” Brief for Petitioner 27. Rather, it covers a category of postjudgment execution claims filed by numerous plaintiffs who, in multiple civil actions, obtained evidence-based judgments against Iran together amounting to billions of dollars. Section 8772 subjects the designated assets to execution “to satisfy any judgment” against Iran for damages caused by specified acts of terrorism. §8772(a)(1) (emphasis added). Congress, our decisions make clear, may amend the law and make the change applicable to pending cases, even when the amendment is outcome determinative. Adding weight to our decision, Congress passed, and the President signed, §8772 in furtherance of their stance on a matter of foreign policy. Action in that realm warrants respectful review by courts. The Executive has histori-cally made case-specific sovereign-immunity determinations to which courts have deferred. And exercise by Congress and the President of control over claims against foreign governments, as well as foreign-government-owned property in the United States, is hardly a novelty. In accord with the courts below, we perceive in §8772 no violation of separation-of-powers principles, and no threat to the independence of the Judiciary. I A We set out here statutory provisions relevant to this case. American nationals may file suit against state sponsors of terrorism in the courts of the United States. See 28 U. S. C. §1605A. Specifically, they may seek “money damages . . . against a foreign state for personal injury or death that was caused by” acts of terrorism, including “torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material support” to terrorist activities. §1605A(a)(1). This authorization—known as the “terrorism exception”—is among enumerated excep- tions prescribed in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) to the general rule of sovereign immunity.[2] Victims of state-sponsored terrorism, like others proceeding under an FSIA exception, may obtain a judgment against a foreign state on “establish[ing] [their] claim[s] . . . by evidence satisfactory to the court.” §1608(e). After gaining a judgment, however, plaintiffs proceeding under the terrorism exception “have often faced practical and legal difficulties” at the enforcement stage. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 2. Subject to stated excep-tions, the FSIA shields foreign-state property from execution. §1609. When the terrorism exception was adopted, only foreign-state property located in the United States and “used for a commercial activity” was available for the satisfaction of judgments. §1610(a)(7), (b)(3). Further limiting judgment-enforcement prospects, the FSIA shields from execution property “of a foreign central bank or monetary authority held for its own account.” §1611(b)(1). To lessen these enforcement difficulties, Congress enacted the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA), which authorizes execution of judgments obtained under the FSIA’s terrorism exception against “the blocked assets of [a] terrorist party (including the blocked assets of any agency or instrumentality of that terrorist party).” §201(a), 116Stat. 2337, note following 28 U. S. C. §1610. A “blocked asset” is any asset seized by the Executive Branch pursuant to either the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), 40Stat. 411, 50 U. S. C. App. 1 et seq., or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 91Stat. 1625, 50 U. S. C. §1570 et seq. See TRIA §201(d)(2). Both measures, TWEA and IEEPA, authorize the President to freeze the assets of “foreign enemy state[s]” and their agencies and instrumentalities. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 25. These blocking regimes “put control of foreign assets in the hands of the President so that he may dispose of them in the manner that best furthers the United States’ foreign-relations and national-security interests.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted).[3] Invoking his authority under the IEEPA, the President, in February 2012, issued an Executive Order blocking “[a]ll property and interests in property of any Iranian financial institution, including the Central Bank of Iran, that are in the United States.” Exec. Order No. 13599, 3 CFR 215 (2012 Comp.). The availability of these assets for execution, however, was contested.[4] To place beyond dispute the availability of some of the Executive Order No. 13599-blocked assets for satisfaction of judgments rendered in terrorism cases, Congress passed the statute at issue here: §502 of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, 126Stat. 1258, 22 U. S. C. §8772. Enacted as a freestanding measure, not as an amendment to the FSIA or the TRIA,[5] §8772 provides that, if a court makes specified findings, “a financial asset . . . shall be subject to execution . . . in order to sat-isfy any judgment to the extent of any compensatory dam-ages awarded against Iran for damages for personal injury or death caused by” the acts of terrorism enumerated in the FSIA’s terrorism exception. §8772(a)(1). Section 8772(b) defines as available for execution by holders of terrorism judgments against Iran “the financial assets that are identified in and the subject of proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Peterson et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al., Case No. 10 Civ. 4518 (BSJ) (GWG), that were restrained by restraining notices and levies secured by the plaintiffs in those proceedings.” Before allowing execution against an asset described in §8772(b), a court must determine that the asset is: “(A) held in the United States for a foreign securities intermediary doing business in the United States; “(B) a blocked asset (whether or not subsequently unblocked) . . . ; and “(C) equal in value to a financial asset of Iran, including an asset of the central bank or monetary authority of the Government of Iran . . . .” §8772(a)(1). In addition, the court in which execution is sought must determine “whether Iran holds equitable title to, or the beneficial interest in, the assets . . . and that no other person possesses a constitutionally protected interest in the assets . . . under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” §8772(a)(2). B Respondents are victims of Iran-sponsored acts of terrorism, their estate representatives, and surviving family members. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 52a–53a; Brief for Respondents 6. Numbering more than 1,000, respondents rank within 16 discrete groups, each of which brought a lawsuit against Iran pursuant to the FSIA’s terrorism exception. App. to Brief for Respondents 1a–2a. All of the suits were filed in United States District Court for the District of Columbia.[6] Upon finding a clear evidentiary basis for Iran’s liability to each suitor, the court entered judgments by default. See, e.g., Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 264 F. Supp. 2d 46, 49 (2003). The majority of respondents sought redress for injuries suffered in connection with the 1983 bombing of the U. S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. App. to Pet. for Cert. 21a.[7] “Together, [respondents] have obtained billions of dollars in judgments against Iran, the vast majority of which remain unpaid.” Id., at 53a.[8] The validity of those judgments is not in dispute. Id., at 55a. To enforce their judgments, the 16 groups of respondents first registered them in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. See 28 U. S. C. §1963 (“A judgment . . . may be registered . . . in any other district . . . . A judgment so registered shall have the same effect as a judgment of the district court of the district where registered and may be enforced in like manner.”). They then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 for turnover of about $1.75 billion in bond assets held in a New York bank account—assets that, respondents alleged, were owned by Bank Markazi. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 52a–54a, 60a, and n. 1; Second Amended Complaint in No. 10–CIV–4518 (SDNY), p. 6.[9] This turnover proceeding began in 2008 when the terrorism judgment holders in Peterson, 264 F. Supp. 2d 46, filed writs of execution and the District Court restrained the bonds. App. to Pet. for Cert. 14a–15a, 62a. Other groups of terrorism judgment holders—some of which had filed their own writs of execution against the bonds—were joined in No. 10–CIV–4518, the Peterson enforcement proceeding, through a variety of procedural mechanisms.[10] It is this consolidated judgment-enforcement proceed-ing and assets restrained in that proceeding that §8772 addresses. Although the enforcement proceeding was initiated prior to the issuance of Executive Order No. 13599 and the enactment of §8772, the judgment holders updated their motions in 2012 to include execution claims under §8772. Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in No. 10–CIV–4518 (SDNY).[11] Making the findings necessary under §8772, the District Court ordered the requested turn-over. App. to Pet. for Cert. 109a.[12] In reaching its decision, the court reviewed the financial history of the assets and other record evidence showing that Bank Markazi owned the assets. See id., at 111a–113a, and n. 17. Since at least early 2008, the court recounted, the bond assets have been held in a New York account at Citibank directly controlled by Clearstream Banking, S. A. (Clearstream), a Luxembourg-based company that serves “as an intermediary between financial institutions worldwide.” Id., at 56a–57a (internal quotation makes omitted). Initially, Clearstream held the assets for Bank Markazi and deposited interest earned on the bonds into Bank Markazi’s Clearstream account. At some point in 2008, Bank Markazi instructed Clearstream to position another intermediary—Banca UBAE, S. p. A., an Italian bank—between the bonds and Bank Markazi. Id., at 58a–59a. Thereafter, Clearstream deposited interest payments in UBAE’s account, which UBAE then remitted to Bank Markazi. Id., at 60a–61a.[13] Resisting turnover of the bond assets, Bank Markazi and Clearstream, as the District Court observed, “filled the proverbial kitchen sink with arguments.” Id., at 111a. They argued, inter alia, the absence of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, id., at 73a–104a, asserting that the blocked assets were not assets “of” the Bank, see supra, at 4, n. 3, and that the assets in question were located in Luxembourg, not New York, App. to Pet. for Cert. 100a. Several of their objections to execution became irrelevant following enactment of §8772, which, the District Court noted, “sweeps away . . . any . . . federal or state law impediments that might otherwise exist, so long as the appropriate judicial determination is made.” Id., at 73a; §8772(a)(1) (Act applies “notwithstanding any other provision of law”). After §8772’s passage, Bank Markazi changed its defense. It conceded that Iran held the requisite “equitable title to, or beneficial interest in, the assets,” §8772(a)(2)(A), but maintained that §8772 could not withstand inspection under the separation-of-powers doctrine. See Defendant Bank Markazi’s Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in No. 10–CIV–4518 (SDNY), pp. 1–3, 10–16.[14] “[I]n passing §8772,” Bank Markazi argued, “Congress effectively dictated specific factual findings in connection with a specific litigation—invading the province of the courts.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 114a. The District Court disagreed. The ownership determinations §8772 required, see supra, at 8–9, the court said, “[were] not mere fig leaves,” for “it [was] quite possible that the [c]ourt could have found that defendants raised a triable issue as to whether the [b]locked [a]ssets were owned by Iran, or that Clearstream and/or UBAE ha[d] some form of beneficial or equitable interest.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 115a. Observing from the voluminous filings that “[t]here [was] . . . plenty . . . to [litigate],” the court described §8772 as a measure that “merely chang[es] the law applicable to pending cases; it does not usurp the adjudicative function assigned to federal courts.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, the court reminded, “Iran’s liability and its required payment of damages was . . . established years prior to the [enactment of §8772]”; “[a]t issue [here] is merely execution [of judgments] on assets present in this district.” Id., at 116a.[15] The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously affirmed. Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 758 F. 3d 185 (2014).[16] On appeal, Bank Markazi again argued that §8772 violates the separation of powers “by compelling the courts to reach a predetermined result in this case.” Id., at 191. In accord with the District Court, the Second Circuit responded that “§8772 does not compel judicial findings [or results] under old law”; “rather, it retroac-tively changes the law applicable in this case, a permissible exercise of legislative authority.” Ibid. Congress may so prescribe, the appeals court noted, “even when the result under the revised law is clear.” Ibid. To consider the separation-of-powers question Bank Markazi presents, we granted certiorari, 576 U. S. ___ (2015), and now affirm.[17] II Article III of the Constitution establishes an independent Judiciary, a Third Branch of Government with the “province and duty . . . to say what the law is” in particular cases and controversies. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). Necessarily, that endowment of authority blocks Congress from “requir[ing] federal courts to exercise the judicial power in a manner that Article III forbids.” Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U. S. 211, 218 (1995) . Congress, no doubt, “may not usurp a court’s power to interpret and apply the law to the [circum-stances] before it,” Brief for Former Senior Officials of the Office of Legal Counsel as Amici Curiae 3, 6, for “[t]hose who apply [a] rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule,” Marbury, 1 Cranch, at 177.[18] And our decisions place off limits to Congress “vest[ing] review of the decisions of Article III courts in officials of the Executive Branch.” Plaut, 514 U. S., at 218 (citing Hayburn’s Case, 2 Dall. 409 (1792), and, e.g., Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 333 U. S. 103, 114 (1948) ). Congress, we have also held, may not “retroactively comman[d] the federal courts to reopen final judgments.” Plaut, 514 U. S., at 219. A Citing United States v. Klein, 13 Wall. 128 (1872), Bank Markazi urges a further limitation. Congress treads impermissibly on judicial turf, the Bank maintains, when it “prescribe[s] rules of decision to the Judicial Department . . . in [pending] cases.” Id., at 146. According to the Bank, §8772 fits that description. Brief for Petitioner 19, 43. Klein has been called “a deeply puzzling decision,” Meltzer, Congress, Courts, and Constitutional Remedies, 86 Geo. L. J. 2537, 2538 (1998).[19] More recent decisions, however, have made it clear that Klein does not inhibit Congress from “amend[ing] applicable law.” Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Soc., 503 U. S. 429, 441 (1992) ; see id., at 437–438; Plaut, 514 U. S., at 218 (Klein’s “prohibition does not take hold when Congress ‘amend[s] applicable law.’ ” (quoting Robertson, 503 U. S., at 441)). Section 8772, we hold, did just that. Klein involved Civil War legislation providing that persons whose property had been seized and sold in wartime could recover the proceeds of the sale in the Court of Claims upon proof that they had “never given any aid or comfort to the present rebellion.” Ch. 120, §3, 12Stat. 820; see Klein, 13 Wall., at 139. In 1863, President Lincoln pardoned “persons who . . . participated in the . . . rebellion” if they swore an oath of loyalty to the United States. Presidential Proclamation No. 11, 13Stat. 737. One of the persons so pardoned was a southerner named Wilson, whose cotton had been seized and sold by Government agents. Klein was the administrator of Wilson’s estate. 13 Wall., at 132. In United States v. Padelford, 9 Wall. 531, 543 (1870), this Court held that the recipient of a Presidential pardon must be treated as loyal, i.e., the pardon operated as “a complete substitute for proof that [the recipient] gave no aid or comfort to the rebellion.” Thereafter, Klein prevailed in an action in the Court of Claims, yielding an award of $125,300 for Wilson’s cotton. 13 Wall., at 132. During the pendency of an appeal to this Court from the Court of Claims judgment in Klein, Congress enacted a statute providing that no pardon should be admissible as proof of loyalty. Moreover, acceptance of a pardon without disclaiming participation in the rebellion would serve as conclusive evidence of disloyalty. The statute directed the Court of Claims and the Supreme Court to dismiss for want of jurisdiction any claim based on a pardon. 16Stat. 235; R. Fallon, J. Manning, D. Meltzer, & D. Shapiro, Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System 323, n. 29 (7th ed. 2015) (Hart and Wechsler). Affirming the judgment of the Court of Claims, this Court held that Congress had no authority to “impai[r] the effect of a pardon,” for the Constitution entrusted the pardon power “[t]o the executive alone.” Klein, 13 Wall., at 147. The Legislature, the Court stated, “cannot change the effect of . . . a pardon any more than the executive can change a law.” Id., at 148. Lacking authority to impair the pardon power of the Executive, Congress could not “direc[t] [a] court to be instrumental to that end.” Ibid. In other words, the statute in Klein infringed the judicial power, not because it left too little for courts to do, but because it attempted to direct the result without altering the legal standards governing the effect of a pardon—standards Congress was powerless to prescribe. See id., at 146–147; Robertson, 503 U. S., at 438 (Congress may not “compe[l] . . . findings or results under old law”).[20] Bank Markazi, as earlier observed, supra, at 13, argues that §8772 conflicts with Klein. The Bank points to a statement in the Klein opinion questioning whether “the legislature may prescribe rules of decision to the Judicial Department . . . in cases pending before it.” 13 Wall., at 146. One cannot take this language from Klein “at face value,” however, “for congressional power to make valid statutes retroactively applicable to pending cases has often been recognized.” Hart and Wechsler 324. See, e.g., United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch 103, 110 (1801). As we explained in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U. S. 244, 267 (1994) , the restrictions that the Constitution places on retroactive legislation “are of limited scope”: “The Ex Post Facto Clause flatly prohibits retroactive application of penal legislation. Article I, §10, cl. 1, prohibits States from passing . . . laws ‘impairing the Obligation of Contracts.’ The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause prevents the Legislature (and other government actors) from depriving private persons of vested property rights except for a ‘public use’ and upon payment of ‘just compensation.’ The prohibitions on ‘Bills of Attainder’ in Art. I, §§ 9–10, prohibit legislatures from singling out disfavored persons and meting out summary punishment for past conduct. The Due Process Clause also protects the interests in fair notice and repose that may be compromised by retroactive legislation; a justification sufficient to validate a statute’s prospective application under the Clause ‘may not suffice’ to warrant its retroactive application.” Id., at 266–267 (citation and footnote omitted). “Absent a violation of one of those specific provisions,” when a new law makes clear that it is retroactive, the arguable “unfairness of retroactive civil legislation is not a sufficient reason for a court to fail to give [that law] its intended scope.” Id., at 267–268. So yes, we have affirmed, Congress may indeed direct courts to apply newly enacted, outcome-altering legislation in pending civil cases. See Plaut, 514 U. S., at 226. Any lingering doubts on that score have been dispelled by Robertson, 503 U. S., at 441, and Plaut, 514 U. S., at 218. Bank Markazi argues most strenuously that §8772 did not simply amend pre-existing law. Because the judicial findings contemplated by §8772 were “foregone conclusions,” the Bank urges, the statute “effectively” directed certain factfindings and specified the outcome under the amended law. See Brief for Petitioner 42, 47. See also post, at 12–13. Recall that the District Court, closely monitoring the case, disagreed. Supra, at 10–11; App. to Pet. for Cert. 115a (“[The] determinations [required by §8772] [were] not mere fig leaves,” for “it [was] quite possible that the [c]ourt could have found that defendants raised a triable issue as to whether the [b]locked [a]ssets were owned by Iran, or that Clearstream and/or UBAE ha[d] some form of beneficial or equitable interest.”).[21] In any event, a statute does not impinge on judicial power when it directs courts to apply a new legal standard to undisputed facts. “When a plaintiff brings suit to enforce a legal obligation it is not any less a case or controversy upon which a court possessing the federal judicial power may rightly give judgment, because the plaintiff’s claim is uncontested or incontestable.” Pope v. United States, 323 U. S. 1, 11 (1944) . In Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch, at 109–110, for example, this Court applied a newly ratified treaty that, by requiring the return of captured property, effectively permitted only one possible outcome. And in Robertson, 503 U. S., at 434–435, 438–439, a statute replaced governing environmental-law restraints on timber harvesting with new legislation that permitted harvesting in all but certain designated areas. Without inquiring whether the new statute’s application in pending cases was a “foregone conclusio[n],” Brief for Petitioner 47, we upheld the legislation because it left for judicial determination whether any particular actions violated the new prescription. In short, §8772 changed the law by establishing new substantive standards, entrusting to the District Court application of those standards to the facts (contested or uncontested) found by the court. Resisting this conclusion, The Chief Justice compares §8772 to a hypothetical “law directing judgment for Smith if the court finds that Jones was duly served with notice of the proceedings.” Post, at 12–13.[22] Of course, the hypothesized law would be invalid—as would a law directing judgment for Smith, for instance, if the court finds that the sun rises in the east. For one thing, a law so cast may well be irrational and, therefore, unconstitutional for reasons distinct from the separation-of-powers issues considered here. See, e.g., infra, at 21, n. 27. For another, the law imagined by the dissent does what Robertson says Congress cannot do: Like a statute that directs, in “Smith v. Jones,” “Smith wins,” supra, at 12–13, n. 17, it“compel[s] . . . findings or results under old law,” for itfails to supply any new legal standard effectuating the lawmakers’ reasonable policy judgment, 503 U. S., at 438.[23] By contrast, §8772 provides a new standard clarifying that, if Iran owns certain assets, the victims of Iran-sponsored terrorist attacks will be permitted to execute against those assets. Applying laws implementing Congress’ policy judgments, with fidelity to those judgments, is commonplace for the Judiciary. B Section 8772 remains “unprecedented,” Bank Markazi charges, because it “prescribes a rule for a single pending case—identified by caption and docket number.” Brief for Petitioner 17.[24] The amended law in Robertson, however, also applied to cases identified by caption and docket number, 503 U. S., at 440, and was nonetheless upheld. Moreover, §8772, as already described, see supra, at 6–8, facilitates execution of judgments in 16 suits, together encompassing more than 1,000 victims of Iran-sponsored terrorist attacks.[25] Although consolidated for administrative purposes at the execution stage,[26] the judgment-execution claims brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 were not independent of the original actions for damages and each claim retained its separate character. See Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc., 486 U. S. 825 –835, n. 10 (1988) (postjudgment garnishment action brought under Rule 69 is part of the “process to enforce a judgment,” not a new suit (alteration omitted and emphasis deleted)); 10 Cyclopedia of Federal Procedure §36:8, p. 385 (3 ed. 2010) (“Proceedings in execution are proceedings in the action itself . . . .”); 9A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §2382, p. 10 (3d ed. 2008) (“[A]ctions do not lose their separate identity because of consolidation.”).[27] The Bank’s argument is further flawed, for it rests on the assumption that legislation must be generally applic-able, that “there is something wrong with particularized legislative action.” Plaut, 514 U. S., at 239, n. 9. We have found that assumption suspect: “While legislatures usually act through laws of general applicability, that is by no means their only legitimate mode of action. Private bills in Congress are still common, and were even more so in the days before establishment of the Claims Court. Even laws that impose a duty or liability upon a single individ-ual or firm are not on that account invalid—or else we would not have the extensive jurisprudence that we do concerning the Bill of Attainder Clause, including cases which say that [the Clause] requires not merely ‘singling out’ but also punishment, see, e.g., United States v. Lovett, 328 U. S. 303 –318 (1946), [or] a case [holding] that Congress may legislate ‘a legitimate class of one,’ Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U. S. 425, 472 (1977) .” Ibid.[28] This Court and lower courts have upheld as a valid exercise of Congress’ legislative power diverse laws that governed one or a very small number of specific subjects. E.g., Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U. S. 102 –161 (1974) (upholding Act that applied to specific railroads in a single region); Pope, 323 U. S., at 9–14 (upholding special Act giving a contractor the right to recover additional compensation from the Government); The Clinton Bridge, 10 Wall. 454, 462–463 (1870) (upholding Act governing a single bridge); Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 18 How. 421, 430–432 (1856) (similar); Biodiversity Assoc. v. Cables, 357 F. 3d 1152, 1156, 1164–1171 (CA10 2004) (upholding law that abro- gated specific settlement agreement between U. S. Forest Service and environmental groups); SeaRiver Maritime Financial Holdings, Inc. v. Mineta, 309 F. 3d 662, 667, 674–675 (CA9 2002) (upholding law that effectively applied to a single oil tanker); National Coalition To Save Our Mall v. Norton, 269 F. 3d 1092, 1097 (CADC 2001) (upholding law that applied to a single memorial). C We stress, finally, that §8772 is an exercise of congressional authority regarding foreign affairs, a domain in which the controlling role of the political branches is both necessary and proper. See, e.g., Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (slip op., at 19). In furtherance of their authority over the Nation’s foreign relations, Congress and the President have, time and again, as exigencies arose, exercised control over claims against foreign states and the disposition of foreign-state property in the United States. See Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U. S. 654 –674, 679–681 (1981) (describing this history). In pursuit of foreign policy objectives, the political branches have regulated specific foreign-state assets by, inter alia, blocking them or governing their availability for attachment. See supra, at 3–4 (describing the TWEA and the IEEPA); e.g., Dames & Moore, 453 U. S., at 669–674. Such measures have never been rejected as invasions upon the Article III judicial power. Cf. id., at 674 (Court resists the notion “that the Federal Government as a whole lacked the power” to “nullif[y] . . . attachments and orde[r] the transfer of [foreign-state] assets.”).[29] Particularly pertinent, the Executive, prior to the enactment of the FSIA, regularly made case-specific determinations whether sovereign immunity should be recognized, and courts accepted those determinations as binding. See Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U. S. 677 –691 (2004); Ex parte Peru, 318 U. S. 578 –590 (1943). As this Court explained in Republic of Mexico v. Hoffman, 324 U. S. 30, 35 (1945) , it is “not for the courts to deny an immunity which our government has seen fit to allow, or to allow an immu-nity on new grounds which the government has not seen fit to recognize.” This practice, too, was never perceived as an encroachment on the federal courts’ jurisdiction. See Dames & Moore, 453 U. S., at 684–685 (“[P]rior to the enactment of the FSIA [courts would not have] reject[ed] as an encroachment on their jurisdiction the President’s determination of a foreign state’s sovereign immunity.”). Enacting the FSIA in 1976, Congress transferred from the Executive to the courts the principal responsibility for determining a foreign state’s amenability to suit. See Verlinden B. V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U. S. 480 –489 (1983). But it remains Congress’ prerogative to alter a foreign state’s immunity and to render the alteration dispositive of judicial proceedings in progress. See Republic of Iraq v. Beaty, 556 U. S. 848 –857, 865 (2009). By altering the law governing the attachment of particular property belonging to Iran, Congress acted comfortably within the political branches’ authority over foreign sovereign immunity and foreign-state assets. * * * For the reasons stated, we are satisfied that §8772—a statute designed to aid in the enforcement of federal-court judgments—does not offend “separation of powers principles . . . protecting the role of the independent Judiciary within the constitutional design.” Miller v. French, 530 U. S. 327, 350 (2000) . The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is therefore Affirmed.Notes 1 * Justice Thomas joins all but Part II–C of this opinion. 2 The FSIA “provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in the courts of this country” and renders a foreign government “presumptively immune from the jurisdiction of United States courts unless one of the Act’s express exceptions to sovereign immunity applies.” OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, 577 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (slip op., at 3) (internal quotation marks omitted); see 28 U. S. C. §1330(a) (conferring jurisdiction over “any claim . . . with respect to which the foreign state is not entitled to immunity”); §1604 (on “[i]mmunity of a foreign state from jurisdiction”). 3 Again expanding the availability of assets for postjudgment execution, Congress, in 2008, amended the FSIA to make available for execution the property (whether or not blocked) of a foreign state sponsor of terrorism, or its agency or instrumentality, to satisfy a judgment against that state. See §1083 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, 122Stat. 341, 28 U. S. C. §1610(g). Section 1610(g) does not take precedence over “any other provision of law,” as the TRIA does. See TRIA §201(a). Hence, the FSIA’s central-bank immunity provision, see supra, at 3, limits §1610(g), but not the TRIA. 4 As a defense to execution, Bank Markazi contended that the blocked assets were not assets “of” Bank Markazi. See TRIA §201(a). Referring to state property law, Bank Markazi asserted that the assets were “of” a financial intermediary which held them in the United States on Bank Markazi’s behalf. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 96a–100a. 5 Title 22 U. S. C. §8772(a)(1) applies “notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any provision of law relating to sovereign immunity, and preempt[s] any inconsistent provision of State law.” 6 The 16 judgments include: Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 864 F. Supp. 2d 24 (DC 2012); Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51 (DC 2010); Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52 (DC 2010) (granting judgment in consolidation of four actions at issue here: Valore, No. 1:03–cv–01959; Bonk v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 1:08–cv–01273; Spencer v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 1:06–cv–00750; and Arnold v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 1:06–cv–00516); Estate of Brown v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 1:08–cv–00531 (D DC, Feb. 1, 2010); Acosta v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 574 F. Supp. 2d 15 (DC 2008); Beer v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 574 F. Supp. 2d 1 (DC 2008); Kirschenbaum v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 572 F. Supp. 2d 200 (DC 2008); Levin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 529 F. Supp. 2d 1 (DC 2007); Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F. Supp. 2d 229 (DC 2006); Estate of Bland v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 1:05–cv–02124 (D DC, Dec. 6, 2006); Greenbaum v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 451 F. Supp. 2d 90 (DC 2006); Campuzano v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 281 F. Supp. 2d 258 (DC 2003) (awarding judgment in both the Rubin action, Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 1:01–cv–01655, the plaintiffs of which are respondents here, and the Campuzano action, the plaintiffs of which are not); Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 264 F. Supp. 2d 46 (DC 2003). Three additional groups of plaintiffs with claims against Iran were voluntarily dismissed from the instant litigation after “informing the [District Court] that none of the plaintiffs in those actions ha[d] obtained judgments for damages against Iran.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 19a. 7 “At approximately 6:25 a.m. Beirut time, . . . [a] truck crashed through a . . . barrier and a wall of sandbags, and entered the barracks. When the truck reached the center of the barracks, the bomb in the truck detonated. . . .” Peterson, 264 F. Supp. 2d, at 56 (footnote omitted). “As a result of the Marine barracks explosion, 241 servicemen were killed . . . .” Id., at 58. The United States has long recognized Iran’s complicity in this attack. See H. R. Rep. No. 104–523, pt. 1, p. 9 (1996) (“After an Administration determination of Iran’s involvement in the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983, Iran was placed on the U. S. list of state sponsors of terrorism on January 19, 1984.”). 8 Some of these 16 judgments awarded compensatory and punitive damages. See, e.g., Wultz, 864 F. Supp. 2d, at 42; Acosta, 574 F. Supp. 2d, at 31. Both §201(a) of the TRIA and §8772(a)(1) permit execution only “to the extent of any compensatory damages.” 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(1) provides: “A money judgment is enforced by writ of execution . . . . The procedure on execution—and in proceedings supplementary to and in aid of judgment or execution—must accord with the procedure of the state where the court is located, but a federal statute governs to the extent it applies.” 10 Some moved to intervene; others became part of the proceeding by way of an interpleader motion filed by Citibank. App. to Pet. for Cert. 15a, 52a–53a, n. 1; Third-Party Petition Alleging Claims in the Nature of Interpleader in No. 10–CIV–4518 (SDNY), pp. 12–14. One group of respondents intervened much later than the others, in 2013, after §8772’s enactment. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 18a–19a. 11 Before §8772’s enactment, respondents’ execution claims relied on the TRIA. Even earlier, i.e., prior to Executive Order No. 13599, which blocked the assets and thereby opened the door to execution under the 12 In April 2012, the last of the bonds matured, leaving only “cash associated with the bonds” still restrained in the New York bank account. App. to Pet. for Cert. 61a. 13 Citibank is a “neutral stakeholder,” seeking only “resolution of ownership of [the] funds.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 54a (internal quotation marks omitted). UBAE did not contest turnover of the $1.75 billion in assets at issue here (though it disputed the District Court’s personal jurisdiction in anticipation of other execution claims not now before us). See Memorandum of Law in Support of Banca UBAE, S. p. A.’s Opposition to the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in No. 10–CIV–4518 (SDNY), pp. 1–2. 14 In addition, Bank Markazi advanced one argument not foreclosed by §8772’s text, and another that, at least in Bank Markazi’s estimation, had not been rendered irrelevant by §8772. First, Bank Markazi argued that the availability of the assets for execution was a nonjusticiable political question because execution threatened to interfere with European blocking regulations. App. to Pet. for Cert. 92a–94a. Second, the Bank urged that execution would violate U. S. treaty obligations to Iran. See Defendant Bank Markazi’s Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in No. 10–CIV–4518 (SDNY), pp. 2–3, 21–25. The District Court found these arguments unavailing. The matter was justiciable, the court concluded, because §8772’s enactment demonstrated that the political branches were not troubled about interference with European blocking regulations. App. to Pet. for Cert. 94a–96a. And treaty provisions interposed no bar to enforcement of §8772 because, the court reiterated, §8772 displaces “any” inconsistent provision of law, treaty obligations 15 Bank Markazi and Clearstream unsuccessfully sought to defeat turnover on several other constitutional grounds: the Bill of Attainder, Ex post facto, Equal Protection, and Takings Clauses. See id., at 115a–119a. Those grounds are no longer pressed. 16 Clearstream and UBAE settled with respondents before the Second Circuit’s decision. Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 758 F. 3d 185, 189 (2014). 17 Respondents suggest that we decide this case on the ground that §201(a) of the TRIA independently authorizes execution against the assets here involved, instead of reaching the constitutional question petitioner raises regarding §8772. Brief for Respondents 53. The Court of Appeals, however, did not “resolve th[e] dispute under the TRIA,” 758 F. 3d, at 189, nor do we. This Court generally does not decide issues unaddressed on first appeal—especially where, as here, the matter falls outside the question presented and has not been thoroughly briefed before us. 18 Consistent with this limitation, respondents rightly acknowledged 19 See also id., at 323 (calling Klein a “delphic opinion”); Tyler, The Story of Klein: The Scope of Congress’s Authority to Shape the Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, in Federal Courts Stories 87 (V. Jackson & J. Resnik eds. 2010) (calling Klein “baffl[ing]”) (Tyler). 20 Given the issue before the Court—Presidential pardons Congress sought to nullify by withdrawing federal-court jurisdiction—commentators have rightly read Klein to have at least this contemporary significance: Congress “may not exercise [its authority, including its power to regulate federal jurisdiction,] in a way that requires a federal court to act unconstitutionally.” Meltzer, Congress, Courts, and Constitutional Remedies, 86 Geo. L. J. 2537, 2549 (1998). See also Tyler 112 (“Congress may not employ the courts in a way that forces them to become active participants in violating the Constitution.”). 21 The District Court understandably concluded that §8772 left it “plenty . . . to adjudicate.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 115a. For one, the statute did not define its key terms, “beneficial interest” and “equitable title.” To arrive at fitting definitions, the District Court consulted legal dictionaries and precedent. See id., at 111a–112a; Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U. S. ___, ___ (2012) (slip op, at 7) (Interpretation of statutes “is a familiar judicial exercise.”). Further, §8772 required the District Court to determine whether the Bank owned the assets in question. §8772(a)(2)(A). Clearstream contended that there were triable issues as to whether Bank Markazi was the owner of the blocked assets. App. to Pet. for Cert. 37a–39a, 111a. The court rejected that contention, finding that Clearstream and UBAE were merely account holders, maintaining the assets “on behalf of” the Bank. Id., at 112a–113a; see id., at 38a–39a. Next, §8772 required the court to determine whether any party, other than the Bank, possessed a “constitutionally protected interest” in the assets. §8772(a)(2)(B). Clearstream argued that it had such an interest, but the court disagreed. App. to Pet. for Cert. 117a–118a (determining that Clearstream had no constitutionally protected “investment-backed expectatio[n]” in the assets). Finally, prior to the statute’s enactment, Bank Markazi and Clearstream had argued that the assets in question were located in Luxembourg, not New York. Supra, at 10. Leaving the issue for court resolution, Congress, in §8772(a)(1), required the District Court to determine whether the assets were “held in the United States.” 22 Recall, again, that respondents are judgment creditors who prevailed on the merits of their respective cases. Section 8772 serves to facilitate their ability to collect amounts due to them from assets of the judgment debtor. 23 The dissent also analogizes §8772 to a law that makes “conclusive” one party’s flimsy evidence of a boundary line in a pending property dispute, notwithstanding that the governing law ordinarily provides that an official map establishes the boundary. Post, at 1. Section 8772, however, does not restrict the evidence on which a court may rely in making the required findings. A more fitting analogy for depicting §8772’s operation might be: In a pending property dispute, the parties contest whether an ambiguous statute makes a 1990 or 2000 county map the relevant document for establishing boundary lines. To clarify the matter, the legislature enacts a law specifying that the 2000 map supersedes the earlier map. 24 At oral argument, Bank Markazi clarified that its argument extended beyond a single pending case, encompassing as well “a limited category of cases.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 5. See also id., at 57–58. 25 Section 8772’s limitation to one consolidated proceeding operates unfairly, Bank Markazi suggests, because other judgment creditors “would be subject to a completely different rule” if they “sought to execute against the same assets” outside No. 10–CIV–4518. Brief for 26 District courts routinely consolidate multiple related matters for a single decision on common issues. See, e.g., Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Securities LLC, 476 B. R. 715, 717 (SDNY 2012) (deciding several legal questions arising in over 80 cases concerning “the massive Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Bernard L. Madoff”). 27 Questioning this understanding of the proceedings below, The Chief Justice emphasizes that many of the judgment creditors were joined in the Peterson enforcement proceeding by interpleader. See post, at 8, n. 1. That is true, supra, at 8, n. 9, but irrelevant. As explained above, execution proceedings are continuations of merits proceedings, not new lawsuits. Thus, the fact that many creditors joined by interpleader motion did not transform execution claims in 16 separate suits into “a single case.” Post, at 8, n. 1. 28 Laws narrow in scope, including “class of one” legislation, may violate the Equal Protection Clause if arbitrary or inadequately justified. Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U. S. 562, 564 (2000) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted); New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U. S. 297 –306 (1976) (per curiam). 29 The Chief Justice correctly notes that the Court in Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U. S. 654, 661 (1981) , urged caution before extending its analysis to “other situations” not presented in that case. Post, at 15. Much of the Court’s cause for concern, however, was the risk that the ruling could be construed as license for the broad exercise of unilat-
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 . SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus BANK MARKAZI, aka CENTRAL BANK OF IRAN v. PETERSON et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit No. 14–770. Argued January 13, 2016—Decided April 20, 2016 American nationals may seek money damages from state sponsors of terrorism in the courts of the United States. See 28 U. S. C. §1605A. Prevailing plaintiffs, however, often face practical and legal difficulties enforcing their judgments. To place beyond dispute the availability of certain assets for satisfaction of judgments rendered in terrorism cases against Iran, Congress enacted the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012. As relevant here, the Act makes a designated set of assets available to satisfy the judgments underlying a consolidated enforcement proceeding which the statute identifies by the District Court’s docket number. 22 U. S. C. §8772. Section 8772(a)(2) requires a court, before allowing execution against these assets, to determine, inter alia, “whether Iran holds equitable title to, or the beneficial interest in, the assets.” Respondents—more than 1,000 victims of Iran-sponsored acts of terrorism, their estate representatives, and surviving family members—rank within 16 discrete groups, each of which brought suit against Iran. To enforce judgments they obtained by default, the 16 groups moved for turnover of about $1.75 billion in bond assets held in a New York bank account—assets that, respondents alleged, were owned by Bank Markazi, the Central Bank of Iran. The turnover proceeding began in 2008. In 2012, the judgment holders updated their motions to include execution claims under §8772. Bank Markazi maintained that §8772 could not withstand inspection under the separation-of-powers doctrine, contending that Congress had usurped the judicial role by directing a particular result in the pending enforcement proceeding. The District Court disagreed, concluding that §8772 permissibly changed the law applicable in a pending litigation. The Second Circuit affirmed. Held: Section 8772 does not violate the separation of powers. . (a) Article III of the Constitution establishes an independent Judiciary with the “province and duty . . . to say what the law is” in particular cases and controversies. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177. Necessarily, that endowment of authority blocks Congress from “requir[ing] federal courts to exercise the judicial power in a manner that Article III forbids.” Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U. S. 211 . Although Article III bars Congress from telling a court how to apply pre-existing law to particular circumstances, Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Soc., 503 U. S. 429 –439, Congress may amend a law and make the amended prescription retroactively applicable in pending cases, Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U. S. 244 –268; United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch 103, 110. In United States v. Klein, 13 Wall. 128, 146, this Court enigmatically observed that Congress may not “prescribe rules of decision to the Judicial Department . . . in [pending] cases.” More recent decisions have clarified that Klein does not inhibit Congress from “amend[ing] applicable law.” Robertson, 503 U. S., at 441; Plaut, 514 U. S., at 218. Section 8772 does just that: It requires a court to apply a new legal standard in a pending postjudgment enforcement proceeding. No different result obtains because, as Bank Markazi argues, the outcome of applying §8772 to the facts in the proceeding below was a “foregone conclusio[n].” Brief for Petitioner 47. A statute does not impinge on judicial power when it directs courts to apply a new legal standard to undisputed facts. See Pope v. United States, 323 U. S. 1 . . (b) Nor is §8772 invalid because, as Bank Markazi further objects, it prescribes a rule for a single, pending case identified by caption and docket number. The amended law upheld in Robertson also applied to cases identified in the statute by caption and docket number. 503 U. S., at 440. Moreover, §8772 is not an instruction governing one case only: It facilitates execution of judgments in 16 suits. While consolidated for administrative purposes at the execution stage, the judgment-execution claims were not independent of the original actions for damages and each retained its separate character. In any event, the Bank’s argument rests on the flawed assumption that legislation must be generally applicable. See Plaut, 514 U. S., at 239, n. 9. This Court and lower courts have upheld as a valid exercise of Congress’ legislative power laws governing one or a very small number of specific subjects. . (c) Adding weight to this decision, §8772 is an exercise of congressional authority regarding foreign affairs, a domain in which the controlling role of the political branches is both necessary and proper. Measures taken by the political branches to control the disposition of foreign-state property, including blocking specific foreign-state assets or making them available for attachment, have never been rejected as invasions upon the Article III judicial power. Cf. Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U. S. 654 . Notably, before enactment of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the Executive regularly made case-specific determinations whether sovereign immunity should be recognized, and courts accepted those determinations as binding. See, e.g., Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U. S. 677 –691. This practice, too, was never perceived as an encroachment on the federal courts’ jurisdiction. Dames & Moore, 453 U. S., at 684–685. . 758 F. 3d 185, affirmed. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan, JJ., joined, and in all but Part II–C of which Thomas, J., joined. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor, J., joined.
Basis Basis cleanseexamining erfahren erfahren restrictions restrictions restrictions examine cleanse cleanse examine examine examineexaminingexamining examine examine 1984 1984 1984examiningexaminingexamining 1984AMAAMA virtual 1984 1984AMA 1984examining 1984 1984smallestsmallestAMAAMAAMAsmallestsmallest chunk chunksmallestsmallest888888examiningexamining Engag Engagexamining markers markersexamining zisexaminingexamining cleanseexaminingexamining zis 1984ohnohnexaminingexamining mittelsexamining mittelsSchraub cleanse cleanseSchraubSchraubSchraub restrictionsSchraub markersexamining 25,examining markers restrictions markersexaminingexamining markers 25,AMAexaminingexaminingAppexamining attendant markersexaminingAMAexamining markersexamining 1984 restrictionsAMAexamining 1984GitarreGitarre benign benignAMAAMA doreșt intermediu trouble trouble troubleApp troubleAppApp idolAppAppAppmymy brand brand cinqAppAppneyneyney cinq cinq verify cinq cinqleaderleader examine examinedeutendeutendeuten examine markers markers markers attendantAMA cinqAMA markers markersAMA Karl cleanse cleanse Karl markers cleanse seafood Karl Karl Karlleaderleaderleader attendantleaderleader finding 2020 2020 strawberry markerskonferenzcontractleaderleader markers markers Kaiser markers strawberry markers markers 1950 markers episodes episodes episodes cleanse strawberry cleansedeutendeuten 1950deuten cinq cinq Karl Karldeuten markers markers cinq cinq cinqcheapest 1/2 1/2 markers 1950 1950 cinq cinq markers Karl 1950 1950évoluer cinqcheapestleader 1/2 1/2 examine examinecheapestleaderleadercheapestcheapestcheapest examinecheapestnemleader examinenemleaderleadercontract examinenem examineleader examineleader attendant examine examineleader util examine examinecontract examine examine Delivery examine examine bull examine examine attendant examineAMA examine examine aplicatii examine examineente examine examine vacant examine examineAMA 1984 examine 1984 examine examineGitarre examine examinemy examineAMA attendant examineenteAMA examineAMAmy examine examine mad 1984 examineente 1984mymy examine 1984 attendant 1984 1984 mad 1984 mad madente examine 1984my 1984ente 1984 1984App 1984 examine verify examine examine verify verify examineenteenteAppApp examine examineApp examine attendant attendant examinecontract Karl Karl examineAMAcontractcontract examine 1984AMA examine 1984 verify examineAMAApp examineAMA verify examine verify 1984AMAApp 1984 1984 examinecheapest examine examine schafft examine examine rénovation examine examinekit examine attendant verifyAMAAMAcontract 1984 examineAMAAMA examineohn 1984 examine Engag verify examineibilité 1984ibilité 1984 examine attendant 1984 examineGitarre 1984 examine Karl examine examine KarlAMA examinecheapest verify verify verifycontractcontractAMAAMA 1984AppAMA examineApp 1984App examine verify attendant examine 1984 doreșt 1984AMAcheapest examine verify doreșt 1984 1984 attendantApp examineAppAppAMAAppApp doreșt examine examine doreșt examine doreșt attendant examine markers examine attendant markers markers examineAMA markers examine examine markers 1984 markers examine 1984 markers markers 1984 1984 markers 1984AppApp rénovation examineApp doreșt doreștibilité doreștleader examine verifyleaderleaderApp markers markersleaderAppleader markersleader zis markers markers usorleader zisleader markers cleanseleaderleader verifyleader markerscheapest markersleader markers usor markers markers zis markersleader doreștleader markers examine markers doreșt markers markers doreșt doreșt markers doreșt 1984 markers doreștApp markers examine doreșt doreșt doreșt verify doreștcontract markers 1984 examineAppney doreșt doreștApp examine doreștApp doreșt restrictions doreșt doreșt restrictions restrictions markerslimiting 1950 markers markerslimiting markers markers mittels markers markersApp markersexaminingApp examine markers attendant examine zis markers examineexamining markers examine cleanse markers markersmy markers markers Karl 1984 markers 1950 1984 markersAMAleader markersexamining markers 48 markers markers cleanse markersleaderleader doreșt markerslimitingApp markers doreșt verify markers markers verify markersAppApp markersApp attendant markers 1950App markersleadermyApp markerslimitingleaderleadermy examineleaderleader Cardsleaderleader loyaltyleaderleader strawberryleaderleaderlimitingleader markers attendant markersleaderibilitéleaderleader cleanseleader markerscontractleader markers doreștleaderlimiting markersleaderlimiting cleanse markersibilité markersleader verify verify markers examineleader 1984leader markers 1984 attendant cleanse markers 1950leaderAMAleader examine markersleader attendant doreșt markerscontract markers attendant 1984 markersApp doreșt markersApp brand doreșt doreșt attendant markersAMA markersAMA doreșt markersibilité doreștibilité markers verify verify attendant markersibilitéleader markersibilitéApp markers verifyApp markers 1984 verify markers 1984 1950 1984 1984leader 1984 examine mittels examine examineibilité doreșt verify attendantcontract 1950 1950leader 1950leader markers schafft markersleaderexaminingleaderleaderexamining markersleader cleanse markers schafftleader markerslimiting doreșt markers examinelimiting markers examineibilité markers doreșt examine markers verify examine markersibilité 1984 markers verify 1984 markersleader 1984App doreșt 1984 attendant mittels examineleaderibilité examineibilité verify verifyleader examine schafft 1984AMA markersleader examineAMA doreșt verify examinelimiting 1984 markers mittelsAMA markers aplicatii markers 1984 doreștAMA 1984 1984 mittels 1984 1984 verify 1984 verify verify 1984 1984 KarlApp 1984AMA doreșt examinelos examine doreșt Delivery doreșt doreșt 1950 verify attendant verify examine 1950 1950 1950 markers 1950AMA markers schafft examine markers Karl Karl markers markerscontractAMA markers 1984leaderAMAexamining examineexamining doreșt markers 1950contract markersAMAAMAAppcheapest doreșt examine schafft doreșt doreșt 1984 doreșt doreșt examineexamining examine 1950 examine markers bugetul markers markers 1/2 markers markers finding markers markers quant markers 1984 1/2AMA markersexamining doreșt examineibilitéibilité markers markersibilitéibilitéleader doreșt verifyleader verify examineleader markers verifyleaderlimiting verify markers verify 1950leaderleaderAMA examine markers schafft 1984 examine doreșt 1984leader examine 1984leader doreșt examineleader doreșt doreștcontractcontract attendantAppAppleader doreștAppibilité doreșt doreștleadercontract markers examineAppleader examine doreșt markers verify doreșt markers 1984