Suhail Najim Abdullah Al Shimari v. Caci Premier Tech., Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 June 2014 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 13–1937,13–2162.,s. 13–1937 |
| Citation | 758 F.3d 516 |
| Parties | Suhail Najim Abdullah AL SHIMARI; Taha Yaseen Arraq Rashid; Salah Hasan Nusaif Al–Ejaili; Asa'ad Hamza Hanfoosh Alzuba'e, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. CACI PREMIER TECHNOLOGY, INC.; CACI International, Inc., Defendants–Appellees, and Timothy Dugan; L–3 Services, Inc., Defendants. Civil Procedure Professors; Dolly Filartiga; Abukar Hassan Ahmed; Daniel Alvarado; Dr. Juan Romagoza Arce; Aldo Cabello; Zita Cabello; Aziz Mohamed Deria; Neris Gonzales; Carlos Mauricio; Gloria Reyes; Oscar Reyes; Cecilia Santos Moran; Zenaida Velasquez; Bashe Abdi Yousuf; International Law Scholars; William R. Casto; Martin S. Flaherty; Nasser Hussein; Stanley N. Katz; Michael Lobban; Jenny S. Martinez; Retired Military Officers; United Nations Special Rapporteurs on Torture, Amici Supporting Appellants. Suhail Najim Abdullah Al Shimari; Taha Yaseen Arraq Rashid; Salah Hasan Nusaif Al–Ejaili; Asa'ad Hamza Hanfoosh Alzuba'e, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc.; CACI International, Inc., Defendants–Appellees, and Timothy Dugan; L–3 Services, Inc., Defendants. Civil Procedure Professors; Dolly Filartiga; Abukar Hassan Ahmed; Daniel Alvarado; Dr. Juan Romagoza Arce; Aldo Cabello; Zita Cabello; Aziz Mohamed Deria; Neris Gonzales; Carlos Mauricio; Gloria Reyes; Oscar Reyes; Cecilia Santos Moran; Zenaida Velasquez; Bashe Abdi Yousef; International Law Scholars; William R. Castro; Martin S. Flaherty; Nasser Hussein; Stanley N. Katz; Michael Lobban; Jenny S. Martinez; Retired Military Officers; United Nations Special Rapporteurs on Torture, Amici Supporting Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
ARGUED:Baher Azmy, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, New York; Robert P. LoBue, Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, New York, New York, for Appellants. Joseph William Koegel, Jr., Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF:Katherine Gallagher, Jeena Shah, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, New York; Shereef Hadi Akeel, Akeel & Valentine, P.C., Troy, Michigan; George Brent Mickum IV, Law Firm Of George Brent Mickum IV, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellants. John F. O'Connor, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Tyler R. Giannini, Sarah P. Alexander, International Human Rights Clinic, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, for Amici William R. Casto, Martin S. Flaherty, Nasser Hussain, Stanley N. Katz, Michael Lobban, and Jenny S. Martinez. Stephen B. Pershing, The Chavers Firm, LLC, Washington, D.C.; Ralph G. Steinhardt, Arin Melissa Brenner, George Washington University Law School, Washington, D.C., for Amicus International Law Scholars. Jonathan Hafetz, Rachel Godsil, Jon Romberg, Chelsea Jasnoff, Matthew Mierswa, Center for Social Justice, Seton Hall University School of Law, Newark, New Jersey, for Amicus Retired Military Officers. L. Kathleen Roberts, Nushin Sarkarati, Scott A. Gilmore, The Center for Justice & Accountability, San Francisco, California; Ali A. Beydoun, Unrow Human Rights Impact Litigation Clinic, Washington, D.C., for Amici Dolly Filartiga, Abukar Hassan Ahmed, Daniel Alvarado, Juan Romagoza Arce, Aldo Cabello, Zita Cabello, Aziz Mohamed Deria, Neris Gonzales, Carlos Mauricio, Gloria Reyes, Oscar Reyes, Cecilia Santos Moran, Zenaida Velasquez, and Bashe Abdi. Deena R. Hurwitz, Lauren Schnyer, Second Year Law Student, Jennifer Tian, Third Year Law Student, University of Virginia School of Law, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Amicus United Nations Special Rapporteurs on Torture. Joshua S. Devore, Agnieszka M. Fryszman, Choen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Amici Civil Procedure Professors, Erwin Chemerinsky, Helen Hershkoff, Allan Paul Ides, Stephen I. Vladeck, and Howard M. Wasserman.
Before KEENAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and MAX O. COGBURN, JR., United States District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.
Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge KEENAN wrote the opinion, in which Judge FLOYD and Judge COGBURN joined.
In this appeal, we consider whether a federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider certain civil claims seeking damages against an American corporation for the torture and mistreatment of foreign nationals at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.1 The primary issue on appeal concerns whether the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1659, 185 L.Ed.2d 671 (2013), provides a jurisdictional basis for the plaintiffs' alleged violations of international law, despite the presumption against extraterritorial application of acts of Congress. We also address the defendants' contention that the case presents a “political question” that is inappropriate for judicial resolution under our decision in Taylor v. Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., 658 F.3d 402 (4th Cir.2011).
We conclude that the Supreme Court's decision in Kiobel does not foreclose the plaintiffs' claims under the Alien Tort Statute, and that the district court erred in reaching a contrary conclusion. Upon applying the fact-based inquiry articulated by the Supreme Court in Kiobel, we hold that the plaintiffs' claims “touch and concern” the territory of the United States with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute. See Kiobel, 133 S.Ct. at 1669. However, we are unable to determine from the present record whether the claims before us present nonjusticiable political questions. Therefore, we do not reach the additional issue of the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' common law claims, and we vacate the district court's judgment with respect to all the plaintiffs' claims and remand the case to the district court. We direct that the district court undertake factual development of the record and analyze its subject matter jurisdiction in light of our decisionin Taylor and the principles expressed in this opinion.
In 2003, a multi-national force led by the United States and the United Kingdom invaded Iraq and deposed its sovereign leader, Saddam Hussein. The United States took control of Abu Ghraib, the site of a prison facility near Baghdad, and used the prison to detain various individuals, including criminals, enemies of the provisional government, and other persons selected for interrogation because they were thought to possess information regarding Iraqi insurgents.
Due to a shortage of trained military interrogators, the United States hired civilian contractors to interrogate detainees at Abu Ghraib. During the time period relevant to this civil action, those private interrogators were provided exclusively by CACI Premier Technology, Inc. (CACI), a corporation domiciled in the United States. CACI's corporate headquarters is located in Virginia, and CACI is a wholly-owned subsidiary of CACI International, Inc. (CACI International), a publicly traded Delaware corporation that also has corporate headquarters in Virginia.
According to an official investigation commissioned by the United States Department of Defense (Defense Department), “numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees” at the Abu Ghraib prison between October and December 2003. MAJ. GEN. ANTONIO M. TAGUBA, ARTICLE 15–6 INVESTIGATION OF THE 800TH MILITARY POLICE BRIGADE 16 (2004) [hereinafter REPORT OF MAJ. GEN. TAGUBA]. These atrocities were condemned by the President of the United States as being “abhorrent” practices that “don't represent America.” White House, Press Release, President Bush Meets with Al Arabiya Television, 2004 WLNR 2540883 (May 5, 2004). Both houses of Congress condemned the abuses, stating that those acts “contradict[ed] the policies, orders, and laws of the United States and the United States military,” H.R. Res. 627, 108th Cong. (2004), and “urg[ing] that all individuals responsible for such despicable acts be held accountable,” S. Res. 356, 108th Cong. (2004). Investigations conducted by the Defense Department concluded that CACI interrogators directed or participated in some of the abuses, along with a number of military personnel. See REPORT OF MAJ. GEN. TAGUBA 48; MAJ. GEN. GEORGE R. FAY, ARTICLE 15–6 INVESTIGATION OF THE ABU GHRAIB DETENTION FACILITY AND 205TH MILITARY INTELLIGENCE BRIGADE 7–8, 84, 86–87, 89, 116–17, 132–35 (2004).
The four plaintiffs in this case are foreign nationals who allege that they were tortured and otherwise mistreated by American civilian and military personnel while detained at Abu Ghraib.2 Among many other examples of mistreatment, the plaintiffs describe having been “repeatedly beaten,” “shot in the leg,” “repeatedly shot in the head with a taser gun,” “subjected to mock execution,” “threatened with unleashed dogs,” “stripped naked,” “kept in a cage,” “beaten on [the] genitals with a stick,” “forcibly subjected to sexual acts,” and “forced to watch” the “rape[ ][of] a female detainee.” Many of the acts allegedly were perpetrated “during the night shift” in order to “minimize the risk of detection by nonparticipants” and to “soften up” the detainees for later interrogation.
The plaintiffs allege that CACI employees “instigated, directed, participated in, encouraged, and aided and abetted conduct towards detainees that clearly violated the Geneva Conventions, the Army Field Manual, and the laws of the United States.” In particular, the plaintiffs allege that in the “command vacuum at Abu Ghraib,” CACI interrogators operated with “little to no supervision” and were perceived as superiors by United States military personnel. Military personnel allegedly carried out orders issued by the CACI civilian interrogators to “soften up” and “set conditions” for the abuse of particular detainees, contrary to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Alvarez v. Johns Hopkins Univ.
...of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).23 See, e.g., Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc., 758 F.3d 516, 525 n.5 (4th Cir. 2014) (confirming that the issue of corporate vicarious liability was not before the court); Nestle USA, Inc., 766 F.3......
-
Jovic v. L-3 Servs., Inc.
...should proceed when some of the relevant conduct occurs in the United States”) (emphasis in original); Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc., 758 F.3d 516, 526 (4th Cir.2014) (noting that “the Supreme Court used the phrase ‘relevant conduct’ to frame its “touch and concern” inquiry, but ne......
-
Nat'l Fuel Gas Distribution Corp. v. N.Y.S. Energy Research & Dev. Auth.
... ... " Oscar Gruss & Son, Inc. v. Hollander, 337 F.3d 186, 193 (2d Cir. 2003) ... ...
-
Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
...but the 2nd, 4th, and 11th Circuits have all interpreted the “touch and concern” test. The 4th Circuit held in Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc., 758 F.3d 516 (4th Cir.2014), that the presumption against extraterritoriality was displaced in a suit for claims arising from alleged acts o......
-
Former Abu Ghraib Detainees Appeal Political Question Dismissal Of Suit Against War-Zone Contractor
...Constitution assigns to the political branches, or that the judiciary is ill-equipped to address." Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc., 758 F.3d 516, 531 (4th Cir. 2014) (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962)). It is a threshold, jurisdictional defense, which government contrac......
-
The Real Political Question Doctrine.
...572 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2009). (155.) Id. at 1275, 1282-83. (156.) Id. at 1275. (157.) See, e.g., A1 Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc., 758 F.3d 516, 530, 537 (4th Cir. 2014); McMahon v. Presidential Airways, Inc., 502 F.3d 1331, 1360 (11th Cir. 2007); Lane v. Flalliburton, 529 F.3d 548,......
-
The Judicial Philosophy of Chief Justice John Roberts: an Analysis Through the Eyes of International Law
..."did not hold that plaintiffs may never bring ATS claims based on extraterritorial conduct"), Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc., 758 F.3d 516, 520, 530-31 (4th Cir. 2014) (finding jurisdiction under Kiobel's "touch and concern standard" where four Iraqis sued a U.S. corporation for all......
-
A Truck Stop Instead of Saint Peter's: the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act Is Not Perfect, but it Solves Some of the Problems of Sosa and Kiobel
...& Lawrence, supra note 4.70. Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 69 F. Supp. 3d 75, 94-95 (D.D.C. 2014); Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc., 758 F.3d 516, 520 (4th Cir. 2014); Balintulo v. Daimler AG, 727 F.3d 174, 189-90 (2d Cir. 2013); Cardona v. Chiquita Brands Int'l, Inc., 760 F.3d 1185, 1191......
-
The Alien Tort Statute and Corporate Liability: Rebutting the Extraterritorial Presumption Post-kiobel
...of torture and murder in Colombia, but financed and overseen by a U.S. corporation), with Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc., 758 F.3d 516, 530-31 (4th Cir. 2014) (holding plaintiffs did state a valid ATS claim for allegations of torture in Iraq, but financed and overseen by a U.S. corp......