Doe v. Taliban

• Docket Number: 22-7134
• Decision Date: 26 April 2024
• Citation: 101 F.4th 1
• Parties: John DOEs 1-7, Appellants v. TALIBAN, et al., Appellees, International Monetary Fund; International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Garnishee-Appellees
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

101 F.4th 1

John DOEs 1-7, Appellants v. TALIBAN, et al., Appellees,International Monetary Fund; International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Garnishee-Appellees

No. 22-7134

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Argued October 27, 2023

Decided April 26, 2024

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia(No. 1:21-mc-00110)

John Thornton argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellants.

Ginger D. Anders argued the cause for garnishee-appellee International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.With her on the brief was Sarah E. Wiener.

James R. Newland, Jr. argued the cause for garnishee-appellee International Monetary Fund.With him on the brief were Kiran Aftab Seldon and Owen R. Wolfe.

Before: Srinivasan, Chief Judge, and Millett and Pan, Circuit Judges.

Millett, Circuit Judge:

In 2020, seven victims of a 2016 terrorist bombing in Afghanistan obtained multi-million-dollar default judgments against the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and the Haqqani Network.Following the Taliban's 2021 takeover of Afghanistan, those seven victims, suing as John Doeplaintiffs("John Does"), sought to attach assets presently held by the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (commonly known as the "World Bank").The John Does contend that these assets are subject to execution because, in their view, they belong to the Afghan government or the central bank of Afghanistan, and the Taliban has become the de facto Afghan government and the Afghan central bank its "instrumentality."

We cannot address the merits of the John Does' claims.Congress has accorded the Fund and the World Bank statutory immunity from suit in United States courts under the International Organizations Immunities ActandForeign Sovereign Immunities Act.Because our hands are jurisdictionally tied in this case, we affirm the district court's order quashing the John Does' writs of execution and dismissing their attachment proceeding.

I

A

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act("FSIA")"confers on foreign states two kinds of immunity."Republic of Argentina v. NML Cap., Ltd., 573 U.S. 134, 142, 134 S.Ct. 2250, 189 L.Ed.2d 234(2014).First, it provides that "foreign state[s] shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States" unless their conduct falls within one of the statutorily enumerated exceptions.28 U.S.C. § 1604(emphasis added);seeid.§§ 1605-1607(enumerating exceptions).We refer to this type of immunity as "jurisdictional immunity."Second, even when jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign is established, the FSIA separately protects that sovereign's "property in the United States * * * from attachment, arrest, and execution," except to the extent an exception applies.Id.§ 1609;seeid.§§ 1610-1611(enumerating exceptions).This type of immunity is often referred to as "execution immunity."

This distinction between foreign states' jurisdictional and execution immunity is grounded in international law.SeeRESTATEMENT (FOURTH) OF THE LAW OF FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES§ 453(6)(b)(Am. L. Inst. 2018)("Under international law * * * a waiver of immunity from suit does not imply the waiver of immunity from attachment of property, and a waiver of immunity from attachment of property does not imply a waiver of immunity from suit.").¹

As a result of the FSIA's dual immunities, parties seeking judicial enforcement of an award against a foreign state face two hurdles: They must "establish both that the foreign state is not immune from suit and that the property to be attached or executed against is not immune" from execution.TIG Ins. Co. v. Republic of Argentina, 967 F.3d 778, 781(D.C. Cir.2020)(emphases added).

The World Bank and Fund are, of course, not foreign states.But because they are presidentially designated international organizations, the International Organizations Immunities Act ("IOIA") affords them the "same immunity from suit and every form of judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments" under the FSIA.22 U.S.C. § 288a(b);seeExec. OrderNo. 9751, 11 Fed. Reg. 7713(July 13, 1946)(designating the World Bank and Fund as protected "international organizations").As a result, the World Bank and Fund enjoy the same immunities subject to the same exceptions that foreign governments have under the FSIA.SeeJam v. International Fin. Corp., 586 U.S. 199, 139 S. Ct. 759, 772, 203 L.Ed.2d 53(2019)(The FSIA's terms "govern[ ] the immunity of international organizations" under the IOIA.).As relevant here, that means that the Fund and the World Bank enjoy both jurisdictional and execution immunity.²

Against that backdrop, Congress in 2002 passed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act ("TRIA") to make it easier for those who have obtained valid judgments against terrorists and their affiliates to actually recover damages.SeePub. L. No. 107-297,116 Stat. 2322(Nov. 26, 2002), codified at note following 28 U.S.C. § 1610.Section 201(a) of the TRIA provides:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, * * * in every case in which a person has obtained a judgment against a terrorist party on a claim based upon an act of terrorism, or for which a terrorist party is not immune under section 1605(a)(7) of title 28, * * * the blocked assets of that terrorist party(including the blocked assets of any agency or instrumentality of that terrorist party) shall be subject to execution or attachment in aid of execution in order to satisfy such judgment to the extent of any compensatory damages for which such terrorist party has been adjudged liable.

28 U.S.C. § 1610 note.³

B

In January 2016, a suicide bomber detonated a truck loaded with explosives in a residential compound for international workers in Kabul, Afghanistan.Compl.¶¶ 36-38, John Does v. Taliban, No. 20-cv-00605(N.D. Tex.Mar. 20, 2020), ECF No. 1.Among those injured by the resulting blast were the seven John Does, who were working there as State Department civilian contractors.Compl.¶¶ 1-7.The John Does subsequently sued the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and the Haqqani Network, and each obtained multi-million-dollar default judgments that collectively totaled almost $140 million.Final Default Judgment, John Does v. Taliban, No. 20-cv-00605(N.D. Tex.Nov. 5, 2020), ECF No. 22.

In August 2021, the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan as well as several governmental entities, including the Afghan central bank.John Does 1 Through 7, No. 21-mc-00110, 2022 WL 4103853, at *1(D.D.C.Sept. 8, 2022).The John Does subsequently initiated this post-judgment collection action against the World Bank and the Fund.They allege that the World Bank and the Fund hold assets belonging to Afghanistan or to its central bank.Id.The John Does contend specifically that the Taliban has become the de facto government of Afghanistan and its central bank has become an "instrumentality" of the Taliban, so that any "blocked assets" belonging to either constitute "the blocked assets of [a] terrorist party * * * subject to execution" under Section 201(a) of the TRIA.28 U.S.C. § 1610 note.

The John Does registered their default judgment with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and the Clerk of the Court then issued writs of attachment to both the World Bank and the Fund.John Does 1 Through 7, 2022 WL 4103853, at *1.After trying and failing to serve the World Bank and Fund in the traditional ways, the John Does' process server ultimately left the writs at the feet of security guards at each entity's Washington, D.C. office.Id.Following the World Bank's and Fund's refusals to answer interrogatories appended to those writs, the John Does moved in the district court for final judgment.Id.The World Bank and Fund responded and moved to quash the writs on several grounds, including that they were immune from suit and so not subject to the district court's jurisdiction.Id. at *2.

The district court granted the World Bank's and Fund's motions to quash.John Does 1 Through 7, 2022 WL 4103853, at *4.The court found the TRIA inapplicable in this case.Id. at *3-4.The court first expressed "serious reason to doubt that the funds [the John Does sought to recover] belong to Afghanistan," which in itself would make the TRIA inapplicable.Id. at *3.The district court added that, even if the assets belonged to Afghanistan, it could not "recognize an ownership claim by the Taliban" to Afghan assets since "[t]he United States has not recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan."Id.For those reasons, the John Does failed to "show[ ] that the assets at issue fall under the TRIA," and so they"ha[d] not shown that an exception to the Fund and the World Bank's immunity applies[.]"Id. at *4.On that basis, the district court found that it lacked jurisdiction in the case and granted the motions to quash.Id.

II

The district court held that the TRIA was inapplicable and that it therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction.We have jurisdiction to review the district court's judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review questions of law de novo, including the district court's conclusions about its jurisdiction and the World Bank's and Fund's immunities.Nyambal v. International Monetary Fund, 772 F.3d 277, 280(D.C. Cir.2014).We review factual findings for clear error.Id.

III

We cannot address the merits of the John Does' claims unless we first ensure that we have jurisdiction over the World Bank and the Fund.Because we conclude that their statutory immunity remains intact, the district court properly entered judgment dismissing the case against both entities.SeeZuza v. Office of the High Representative, 857 F.3d 935, 938(D.C. Cir.2017)(explaining that properly asserted immunity under the IOIA"[r]emov[es] judicial power to adjudicate a case[and] compels its dismissal").

The starting point under the IOIA and its incorporated FS...