NML Capital v. Argentina is a prime example of how the current sovereign immunity litigation regime is devoid of constitutional analysis. This Paper attempts to trace out the historic constitutional analysis underlying sovereign immunity claims in the context of sovereign debt defaults and apply them to the current litigation. The history of the sovereign debt market and constitutional challenges to those changes as well as the evolution of constitutional analysis of sovereign debt litigation indicate a longstanding constitutional framework. This paper explores how the Argentina litigation fits within the broader framework of historical sovereign immunity litigation — and suggests that the Supreme Court can reestablish the traditional constitutional deference to the executive in this litigation.