Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., 573 U.S. 134 (2014), is a U.S. Supreme Court opinion regarding foreign sovereign immunity.

After defaulting on its debt and losing a federal collection action, Argentina claimed that its foreign assets were immune from discovery.

NML Capital, a 'vulture fund' that specializes in distressed sovereign debt, purchased Argentine public bonds at extreme discounts off a panicking market.

[2] Seeking to satisfy the judgment order, NML Capital undertook a worldwide search for Argentina's assets, at one point convincing Ghana to seize the Argentine Navy's ARA Libertad and forcing Argentina's president to charter private airplanes to avoid having her state aircraft confiscated.

[14][15] As part of its search for attachable assets NML Capital served subpoenas on Bank of America and Banco de la Nación Argentina.

[2] Scalia first traces the history of foreign sovereign immunity in the United States, from initially undisturbed Executive discretion, to the "muddling" noncommercial acts distinction the State Department adopted in 1952, to Congress's creation of the "comprehensive " Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.

[2] Scalia then turns to the statute's text finding the FSIA does not expressly address post judgment discovery.

Noting that FISA and international law only allow the attachment of commercial property, Ginsburg objected to the discovery order's "unlimited inquiry ".