Duran v. United States: Justice Right Out of Reach

When it comes to international disputes handled by U.S courts, perhaps nothing gets more complicated than Duran v. United States. The controversy traces back to 1972, when former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos hid $40 million worth of funds in a New York bank account. Today, two parties are seeking to claim these stolen assets: the Philippine Government and 9,539 victims of Marcos’ authoritarian regime, jointly represented by lead plaintiff Jose Duran. The victims endured political imprisonment, torture, military suppression, and other inhumane government measures.

In 2015, the Philippine government asked the US Attorney General to enforce its foreign forfeiture judgment under 28 U.S. Code § 2467. A foreign forfeiture judgment is a final order from a foreign court—in this case, the Philippine Supreme Court—requiring that a person or entity pays money or forfeits property because it was involved in a criminal offense. However, Duran and the class of human rights victims argued that if the $40 million is transferred into the hands of the Philippine government, there will be “no realistic path” for the victims to recover it. Once the money becomes state property, the Philippine government will have no legal reason or guarantees to distribute it to the victims. As of now, both the district and circuit courts have unanimously affirmed the foreign forfeiture judgment. On October 30, Duren applied to the US Supreme Court for a stay on the circuit court’s ruling. Justice Sotomayor, however, vacated the stay until Duran petitions for a writ of certiorari. Despite an outcome that many observers and human rights advocates view as inequitable, U.S. lower courts have prioritized procedural regularity over claims by human-rights victims. Moving forward, it will be up to the Supreme Court to determine whether legality trumps equity in international asset recovery.

While there are two legitimate moral claimants, only one has a legally enforceable judgment. Both Philippine and U.S. courts have long recognized that Marcos’ Arelma Foundation, through which the $40 million was funnelled, was a fraudulent front for illegal assets. The Philippine anti-corruption court (Sandiganbayan) concluded that Marcos’ assets “stem from criminally obtained property.” Similarly, the U.S 2nd Circuit Court described Marcos as a “dictator and kleptocrat” who “stole billions of dollars from the Republic and its people and used networks of foreign financial accounts and shell corporations to hide [these] stolen funds.”

In 2009, the Sandiganbayan issued a forfeiture judgment, later affirmed by the Philippine Supreme Court. When the Philippines formally requested in 2015 that the U.S. Attorney General enforce foreign forfeiture, Duran, on behalf of the human rights victims, intervened, hoping to prevent the assets from being turned over without assurances for compensation. Notably, these victims had, in fact, already won a $1.96 billion judgment against Marcos in the District of Hawai‘i during the 1990s. However, because Marcos’ estate lacked accessible assets in the United States to satisfy the judgment, these victims never received their compensation.

The dispute then returned to the federal courts for review, prolonging the victims’ decades-long battle for compensation. Applying 28 USC § 2467 as the governing rule of law, the U.S. federal courts sided with the Philippines government. On August 18, 2025, the Second Circuit affirmed the New York district court ruling from 2024 and denied all of Duran’s claims. The Duran class argued that “the [Philippine] Republic never gave notice of the forfeiture proceeding to the Class members” and that the Philippine court jurisdiction was not a proper forum. The Second Circuit responded that “Philippine law… governs” and the victims “failed to show” any defect in their domestic court system. It further held that the Duran class had “no interest in the assets” by the time the Philippine court ruled. As to the earlier $1.96 billion judgment, the circuit court deemed that “efforts by the Class to execute on the Assets were blocked by the [Philippine] Republic and other claimants,” thus preventing the Arelma funds from being used to satisfy the victim’s U.S. judgment.

Recognizing that their moral claim was stronger than their legal one, Duran’s counsel reached out to the Supreme Court for a stay of the circuit court mandate. They argued that the Philippine government would immediately transfer the Arelma funds back to itself and not the victims if § 2467 is enforced. To this end, Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted a temporary stay from November 5th, 2025 to November 14th, 2025. After the stay expired, the U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer expressed that it will take at least several months for assets to be repatriated to the Philippines, leaving Duran with enough time to file for an official writ of certiorari. As such, Duran’s class is now expected to bring this case to the Supreme Court’s merits docket. Whether the Supreme Court will grant certiorari remains uncertain, but a decision on the case would set an important precedent for how the United States manages the tension between legal formalism and moral claims in international asset recovery.