Hollywood attorney Asher Perlin is set to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court next month in one of the most fascinating cases of the year — and his South Florida colleagues will get to see the drama unfold in advance.

Perlin will argue Jenny Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran before a moot court panel Wednesday at Florida International University's Brickell conference center in Miami. The sparring, open only to members of the Rosemary Barkett Appellate American Inn of Court, will open the solo practitioner to criticism from appellate experts.

The panel features former Florida Supreme Court Justice Raoul Cantero, now with White & Case in Miami, Third District Court of Appeal Judge Vance Salter and three South Florida attorneys who have prevailed before the U.S. Supreme Court: Howard Blumberg, Howard Srebnick and Harvey Sepler.

Perlin represents U.S. victims of a 1997 Jerusalem terrorist bombing carried out by Hamas, which a court found received support from Iran. The victims won a $71.5 million judgment against Iran, which did not respond to the lawsuit.

Collecting on a judgment against a foreign government is challenging because of sovereign immunity, although exceptions exist in cases of state-sponsored terrorism. The Rubin plaintiffs used a novel strategy: They filed an action in Illinois federal court to seize a collection of 30,000 ancient clay tablets from Persepolis on loan from Iran to the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute.

The district court ruled in Iran's favor, finding an immunity exception for commercial use did not apply because a third party, not Iran itself, was using the artifacts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, marking a split with the Ninth Circuit in a similar case, Bennett v. Islamic Republic of Iran.

Now Perlin aims to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court that the law allows attachment of all property of state sponsors of terror.

“It's important for the court to send a message that Congress meant what it said: Terrorists and those who sponsor terrorists need to be brought to justice,” he said.

The case set for argument Dec. 4 has drawn briefs from several groups underlining its implications. On one hand, keeping money out of terrorists' hands is critical, as several former U.S. counterterrorism officials wrote as amici. On the other, taking traveling artifacts from U.S. museums could be detrimental to research and education.

“Cultural artifacts are the opposite of commercial property and traditionally were never thought subject to execution,” wrote Iran's counsel, MoloLamken attorneys Jeffrey Lamken, Robert Kry and William Cooper in Washington and Gerald Meyer and Michelle Parthum in Chicago. “As the executive branch has warned, expansive constructions of immunity exceptions threaten United States interests by encouraging reciprocal actions by foreign governments.”

The U.S. government and the University of Chicago also support the Seventh Circuit's interpretation of the law. Lamken argued on behalf of Iran in the Seventh Circuit.

Perlin, who joined the case when it went to the Seventh Circuit, will do three more moot courts after the Miami panel. Rubin will be his first argument before the high court. Although he maintains an office in Hollywood, Perlin mostly works remotely from Tel Aviv, Israel, where he has lived for 20 years.

Wednesday's event is also the Barkett group's first moot court. Inn of Court President Charles “Chip” George said he chose the Rubin case without knowing there was a South Florida connection — the legal issues just jumped out, he said.

“My guess is that if push came to shove, nobody's going to actually let [Perlin] have the artifacts,” George said. “Somebody's going to ultimately pay it. But I thought it was a very creative way to find money that otherwise he couldn't get in order to get his judgment satisfied.”