Yousuf v. Samantar
| Decision Date | 08 January 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 07-1893.,07-1893. |
| Citation | 552 F.3d 371 |
| Parties | Bashe Abdi YOUSUF; Officer John Doe 1; Jane Doe 1; John Doe 2; John Doe 3; John Doe 4; Aziz Deria, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Mohamed Ali SAMANTAR, Defendant-Appellee. Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic, Yale Law School; American Friends Service Committee; Boston Center for Refugee Health and Human Rights; Consistent Life; Earthrights International; Dolly Filartiga; Florida Center for Survivors of Torture; Global Lawyers and Physicians; Human Rights First; Human Rights Watch; Maryknoll Office of Global Concerns; Muslim Public Affairs Council; Sister Dianna Ortiz; Program for Survivors of Torture and Severe Trauma; Program for Torture Victims; Rocky Mountain Survivors Center; Survivors of Torture, International; The Shalom Center; Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition International; World Organization for Human Rights USA; International Rights Advocates; International Human Rights Clinic, Human Rights Program of Harvard Law School; United States Member of Congress and Law Professors, Amici Supporting Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
ARGUED: Tara M. Lee, Cooley, Godward & Kronish, L.L.P., Reston, Virginia, for Appellants. Frederick B. Goldberg, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Robert R. Vieth, Sherron N. Thomas, Cooley, Godward & Kronish, L.L.P., Reston, Virginia; Maureen P. Alger, Cooley, Godward & Kronish, L.L.P., Palo Alto, California; Pamela Merchant, Moira Feeney, Center for Justice & Accountability, San Francisco, California, for Appellants. Julian H. Spirer, Spirer & Goldberg, P.C., Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellee. Tyler Giannini, Harvard Law School, International Human Rights Clinic, Human Rights Program, Cambridge, Massachusetts, for Torture Survivors Support Organizations, Human Rights Organizations, Religious Organizations and Torture
Survivors and Their Family Members, Amici Supporting Appellants. Deena R. Hurwitz, Germaine S. Dunn, Kerry M. Shapleigh, University Of Virginia School of Law, Charlottesville, Virginia, for United States Member of Congress and Law Professors, Amici Supporting Appellants.
Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge TRAXLER wrote the opinion, in which Judge KING joined. Judge DUNCAN wrote a separate concurring opinion.
OPINION
Plaintiffs, all of whom are natives of Somalia, brought this action under the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, see Pub.L. 102-256, 106 Stat. 73 (1992), and the Alien Tort Statute, see 28 U.S.C. § 1350, seeking to impose liability against and recover damages from Defendant Mohamed Ali Samantar for alleged acts of torture and human rights violations committed against them by government agents commanded by Samantar during the regime of Mohamed Siad Barre. The district court concluded that Samantar enjoys immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA"), see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-1611, and dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the FSIA does not apply to individuals and, as a result, Samantar is not entitled to immunity under the FSIA. Because the FSIA does not apply in this case, it consequently does not deprive the district court of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we reverse the ruling of the district court dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA and remand this action for further proceedings.
Plaintiffs all claim to have suffered torture or other abuses in violation of international law at the hands of Somali soldiers or other government agents under the general command of Samantar. Samantar became a high-ranking government official in Somalia as a result of his participation in a socialist coup staged by General Mohamed Barre in 1969. According to plaintiffs, "[p]ower was assumed by the Supreme Revolutionary Council (SRC), which consisted primarily of the Army Officers who had supported and participated in the coup, including Defendant Samantar." J.A. 32. In order to squelch potential opposition to its seizure of power, the SRC outlawed political parties and any organization not sanctioned by the government, and the SRC "systematically favored its own clans and oppressed other clans." J.A. 32. In particular, plaintiffs allege that the military government brutally oppressed the generally prosperous and well-educated Isaaq clan, which the government viewed as a threat, and imposed measures intended to harm the clan politically and economically.
Beginning in the late 1970s, opposition to the Barre regime developed within the disfavored clans and grew among the general citizenry following Somalia's unsuccessful war against Ethiopia over the Ogaden territory. The military leadership reacted by imposing harsh control measures against government opponents, including the alleged commission of "numerous atrocities against ordinary citizens" in order to "terrorize the civilian population and to deter it from supporting the growing opposition movements." J.A 33. Plaintiffs allege that government intelligence agencies, including the National Security Service ("NSS") and the military police, engaged in "the widespread and systematic use of torture, arbitrary detention and extrajudicial killing against the civilian population of Somalia." J.A. 33.
Three of the plaintiffs allege that they were personally subjected to this brutality. Plaintiff Bashe Abdi Yousuf, a member of the Isaaq clan, claims that NSS agents, suspecting him of anti-government activities, abducted him and tortured him by various methods, including electric shock and "the Mig," a means of torture whereby Yousuf's hands and feet were bound together in the air behind his back and a heavy rock was placed on his back. Plaintiff Jane Doe, also an Isaaq clan member, alleges that in 1985, she was abducted from her family home in Hargeisa by NSS agents, repeatedly tortured and raped, beaten to the point that she could not walk, and placed in solitary confinement for three and a half years. Finally, plaintiff John Doe II, also born into the Isaaq clan, alleges that, although he was a non-commissioned officer in the Somali National Army, he was arrested in 1988 with other Somali soldiers who were Isaaq clansmen and then shot during a mass execution. Doe survived his non-fatal wound by hiding under a pile of bodies.
The remaining plaintiffs are pursuing claims as personal representatives of the estates of family members allegedly killed by government agents. Plaintiff Aziz Mohamed Deria alleges that his father and brother were tortured and killed by soldiers based on his family's affiliation with the Isaaq clan. Plaintiff John Doe I, an Isaaq clansman, asserts that his two brothers were abducted by government forces while tending the family's livestock and then executed.
Plaintiffs do not allege that Samantar personally committed these atrocities or that he was directly involved, but they claim that the responsible government agents operated against them and other civilians "with the tacit approval and permission of the Armed Forces and their commander, Defendant Samantar," J.A. 33, who served as Somalia's Minister of Defense from January 1980 to December 1986, and as Prime Minister from January 1987 to September 1990. Regardless of whether the alleged acts occurred during Samantar's tenure as Prime Minister or his stint as Minister of Defense, plaintiffs claim Samantar is subject to liability because, in either capacity, he knew or should have known about this conduct and, essentially, gave tacit approval for it.
Ultimately, any oppression of Somali civilians ended in January 1991, when the Barre regime collapsed and high ranking officials, including Samantar, fled Somalia. Samantar ended up in Virginia, where the plaintiffs, some of whom apparently are naturalized American citizens, found him.
Plaintiffs brought this action for damages under the auspices of two statutes. First, plaintiffs seek to impose liability against Samantar under the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"). The ATS grants district courts "original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1350. The ATS was enacted as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and has been on the books, in essentially its current form, ever since. See Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 712-13 & n. 10, 124 S.Ct. 2739, 159 L.Ed.2d 718 (2004). Fundamentally, "the ATS is a jurisdictional statute [that] creat[ed] no new causes of action"; rather, it was "enacted on the understanding that the common law would provide a cause of action for the modest number of international law violations with a potential for personal liability at the time." Id. at 724, 124 S.Ct. 2739.1
Plaintiffs claim that the torture they suffered and the extrajudicial killings of their family members constituted violations of international law. Plaintiffs contend that Samantar is liable for these acts, both in his capacity as Minister of Defense and as Prime Minister of Somalia, because he "possessed and exercised command and effective control over the Armed Forces of Somalia" and that he "knew or should have known that his subordinates had committed, were committing, or were about to commit extrajudicial killings, . . . torture, crimes against humanity, war crimes, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment." J.A. 45.
Plaintiffs also contend that Samantar is liable under the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 ("TVPA"). The TVPA provides that "[a]n individual who, under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation . . . subjects an individual to torture" or "subjects an individual to extrajudicial killing," is liable in a civil action for damages to the victim or the victim's legal representative. § 2(a), 106...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. McAleenan
...See Serra v. Lappin , 600 F.3d 1191, 1198 (9th Cir. 2010) ("The ATS admits no cause of action by non-aliens."); Yousuf v. Samantar , 552 F.3d 371, 375 n.1 (4th Cir. 2009) ("To the extent that any of the claims under the ATS are being asserted by plaintiffs who are American citizens, federal......
-
Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. McAleenan
...See Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1198 (9th Cir. 2010) ("The ATS admits no cause of action by non-aliens."); Yousuf v. Samantar, 552 F.3d 371, 375 n.1 (4th Cir. 2009) ("To the extent that any of the claims under the ATS are being asserted by plaintiffs who are American citizens, federal s......
-
Samantar v. Yousuf, No. 08–1555.
...suit. It acknowledged “the majority view” among the Circuits that “the FSIA applies to individual officials of a foreign state.” 552 F.3d 371, 378 (C.A.4 2009).4 It disagreed with that view, however, and concluded, “based on the language and structure of the statute, that the FSIA does not ......
-
Swarna v. Al-Awadi
...of consistency."). 15. This opinion did not address whether the FSIA protects a former diplomatic agent. Cf. Yousuf v. Samantar, 552 F.3d 371, 381-82 (4th Cir.2009) ("Congress did not intend to shield former government agents from suit under the FSIA.") (emphasis in original) (citing Dole F......
-
Head of state immunity as sole executive lawmaking.
...and the Fourth Circuit joined the Seventh in holding that the FSIA does not apply to foreign government officials. Yousuf v. Samantar, 552 F.3d 371, 379-81 (4th Cir. 2009), aff'd, Samantar v. Yousuf, 130 S. Ct. 2278 (2010); In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 538 F.3d 71, 80-85 (2d C......
-
The curious history of the Alien Tort Statute.
...F.3d 668, 671 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Two circuits held that the FSIA did not govern the immunity of foreign officials. See Yousuf v. Samantar, 552 F.3d 371, 379-83 (4th Cir. 2009), aff'd, 560 U.S. 305 (2010); Enahoro v. Abubakar, 408 F.3d 877, 881-83 (7th Cir. (332) Trajano v. Marcos (In re Esta......
-
Human Rights After Kiobel: Choice of Law and the Rise of Transnational Tort Litigation
...F.3d 244, 255 (2d Cir. 2009); Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d 163, 201-02 (2d Cir. 2009) (Wesley, J., dissenting); Yousuf v. Samantar, 552 F.3d 371, 384 (4th Cir. 2009), aff'd, 560 U.S. 305 (2010); Viet. Ass'n for Victims of Agent Orange v. Dow Chem. Co., 517 F.3d 104, 116-17 (2d Cir. 2......
-
The dog that caught the car: observations on the past, present, and future approaches of the office of the legal adviser to official acts immunities.
...from failing to defer to executive suggestions of immunity. See Dichter Amicus Brief, supra note 32, at 8-18. (37.) Yousuf v. Samantar, 552 F.3d 371, 373 (4th Cir. 2009), aff'd, 130 S. Ct. 2278 (38.) Id. at 374-75. (39.) Yousuf v. Samantar, No. 1:04-cv1360, 2007 WL 2220579, at *12 (E.D. Va.......