DOCSLIB.ORG

1 This Document Contains All Published Opinions Interpreting The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 This Document Contains All Published Opinions Interpreting The INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CLINIC BOALT HALL, SCHOOL OF LAW • ALIEN TORT CLAIMS ACT CASE COMPENDIUM This document contains all published opinions interpreting the Alien Tort Claims Act as of March 2004. It is not meant to be a searchable database but instead to provide a quick review of cases filed, litigated, or adjudicated. Please keep the following in mind when consulting this document: Organization of the Document: Each case is summarized in a separate table that lists: (1) the case name and citation; (2) the name of the presiding judge and, where available, the name of the U.S. President who appointed the judge; (3) a factual summary; (4) the holding of the opinion; e.g. motion to dismiss denied; and (5) the primary reasoning and arguments advanced along with the defenses asserted. We also specifically note the international law norms discussed as well as the analysis of any disputed customary international law norm. Please note that not all cases that survive a motion for summary judgment or dismissal have continued to be litigated and for some cases there was no further public history or data. All cases are organized alphabetically by the name of the first party. If more than one decision is issued in a particular case, we have organized the decisions in chronological order (beginning with the earliest and progressing to the most recent decision). Cases in which multiple opinions have been issued are listed together and include the most recent available status, e.g., on appeal; final judgment entered; or seeking enforcement of final judgment. Some cases (brought by multiple plaintiffs) are consolidated, e.g. Karadzic and Alvarez-Machain. Also note that some cases were reversed under a different name, (e.g. Doe v. Karadzic of 1994 was reversed sub nom. in Kadic v. Karadzic in 1995). Methodology: We searched public databases for cases interpreting the Alien Tort Claims Act (we also searched for “Alien Tort Statute” or the code section “28 U.S.C.A 1350”). Cases that mention the statute in passing but do discuss its substantive provisions are not included. Cases which courts dismissed are also summarized, and the reasons for dismissal are separately noted. • This compendium was created by Clinic Interns Adam Day, Catherine Mezza, and Volinka Reina. 1 CASE Abebe-Jira v. Negewo, 72 F.3d 844 (11th Cir. 1996) Judge Hon. HATCHETT, Circuit Judge, Appointed by Pres. Jimmy Carter Summary of Facts: The district court entered a judgment that awarded appellee victims damages under the ATCA, after appellant tortfeasor had tortured and degraded appellees during a military dictatorship in Ethiopia. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. Holdings The court rejected appellant's assertion that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Act did not provide a private right of action. Reasoning/Arguments The court read the statute as requiring no more than a claim of a violation of the law of nations in order to invoke § 1350. The court stated that the statute conferred federal subject-matter jurisdiction when an alien brought an action for a tort committed in violation of the law of nations, such as international law. International Law Norms The court of appeals in Filartiga emphasized that federal Discussed courts considering whether to assume jurisdiction under section 1350 should interpret international law as it has evolved and exists at the time of the case. The court then concluded that official torture is now prohibited by the law of nations. Customary Law Analysis The court held that the Act established a federal forum where courts could fashion domestic common law remedies to give effect to violations of customary international law. Defenses The court rejected appellant's assertion that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Act did not provide a private right of action. Other Information of “The political question doctrine prevents the judicial Interest branch from deciding issues textually committed to the legislative or executive branches. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 211, 82 S. Ct. 691, 706, 7 L. Ed. 2d 663 (1962). However, "it is error to suppose that every case or controversy which touches foreign relations lies beyond judicial cognizance." Baker, 369 U.S. at 211, 82 S. Ct. at 706. In Linder v. Portocarrero, 963 F.2d 332, 337 (11th Cir.1992), we held that the political question doctrine did not bar a tort action instituted against Nicaraguan contra leaders. Consequently, we reject Negewo's contention in light of Linder.” 2 CASE Abiola v. Abubakar 267 F.Supp.2d 907 N.D.Ill.,2003. June 17, 2003. Judge Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly Appointed by Pres. Clinton Summary of Facts: Nigerian nationals, alleging they suffered grave human rights abuses in that country, sued former head of state under Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) seeking damages. Former head of state moved for summary judgment. Before his ascension to head of state, Abubakar was appointed the Chief of Defense Staff by General Babangida. In this role, Abubakar was a member of the PRC and a high ranking member of the military junta. The complaint alleges that between 1993 and 1998, Abubakar occupied the third highest military and political position in Nigeria. When he assumed power in 1998, he became head of state, Commander in Chief of the Nigerian armed forces, and Chairman of the PRC. Plaintiff Hafsat Abiola is the daughter of Nigerian pro- democracy activists; she alleges that Abubakar is responsible for their deaths. Plaintiff Arthur Nwankwo is a scholar and political activist who was arrested on June 3, 1998. The complaint alleges that upon his arrest, Nwankwo was stripped naked, flogged with a cane, and carried away in a car trunk. The conditions of his confinement were severe; he was tortured and not permitted any clothes or covers. He was denied access to family, doctors, or legal counsel. He was released on August 24, 1998. Holdings (1) Plaintiffs were not required to satisfy exhaustion of remedies provisions contained in Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA); (2) Former head of state had sovereign immunity for period he was serving in that capacity; (3) Court had personal jurisdiction; and (4) Case would not be dismissed in favor of litigation in Nigeria, on forum non conveniens grounds. Motion granted in part, denied in part. Reasoning/Arguments The TVPA does not supplant other causes of action that can be brought under the ATCA's jurisdictional umbrella. Id. at 4 ("[C]laims based on torture or summary executions do not 3 exhaust the list of actions that may appropriately be covered by section 1350 [the ATCA]. That statute should remain intact to permit suits based on other norms that already exist or may ripen in the future into rules of customary international law."). An alien plaintiff basing federal jurisdiction on the ATCA need not also assert a claim under, or comply with the terms of, the TVPA--all that is required is that she allege a tort committed in violation of international law, as plaintiffs here have done. In sum, because plaintiffs have not alleged a TVPA claim, the TVPA's exhaustion requirement does not apply. H.R.Rep. No. 102-367, pt. 1, at 3 (1991) ("Judicial protections against flagrant human rights violations are often least effective in those countries where such abuses are most prevalent. A state that practices torture and summary execution is not one that adheres to the rule of law. The general collapse of democratic institutions characteristic of countries scourged by massive violations of fundamental rights rarely leaves the judiciary intact."). In light of his failure to do so, and mindful that "the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed," the Court declines to exercise its discretion to dismiss this action on forum non conveniens grounds. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947). International Law Norms Discussed Customary Law Analysis Defenses Other Information of Interest CASE In re African-American Slave Descendants Litigation; 2004 WL 112646 N.D.Ill.,2004. Jan. 26, 2004. Judge Hon. Charles R. Norgle Appointed by President Reagan Summary of Facts: Plaintiffs, identifying themselves as formerly enslaved African- Americans or descendants of formerly enslaved 4 African-Americans, brought nine actions in several districts, seeking monetary and injunctive relief against various corporate defendants for present and past wrongs in connection with the institution of slavery. Upon motion of the defendants, actions were consolidated, by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 231 F.Supp.2d 1357, for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Defendants moved to dismiss. Holdings (1) plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit; (2) actions presented a non-justiciable political question; (3) action failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted; and (4) claims in action were barred by statute of limitations. Motion granted. Reasoning/Arguments Plaintiffs who alleged derivative injuries as result of the enslavement of their ancestors failed to establish any personal, concrete, and particularized injury, as required to have standing to bring suit against organizations alleged to have profited from slavery. U.S.C.A Const. Art. 3, § 2, cl. 1. Plaintiffs who alleged the loss of economic wealth which would have resulted from their ancestors' labor, if not for those ancestors' enslavement, failed to establish any personal injury, as required to have standing to bring suit against organizations alleged to have profited from slavery; alleged injuries were conjectural and speculative. U.S.C.A Const. Art. 3, § 2, cl. 1. Plaintiffs who alleged the loss of economic wealth which would have resulted from their ancestors' labor, if not for those ancestors' enslavement, failed to establish any personal injury, as required to have standing to bring suit against organizations alleged to have profited from slavery; alleged injuries were conjectural and speculative.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • January 16, 2004 the Honorable Samuel A. Alito, Jr. United States
    -U TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS -OR TI* NINTH CIRCUIT ALEX KOZINSKM (626) 229-7140 US C Jcud January 16, 2004 'FAX:' 229-7444 ' . '\... ')',[email protected] The Honorable Samuel A. Alito, Jr. United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 357 United States Courthouse Post Office Box 999 Newark, NJ 07101-0999 Re: Proposed Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 Dear Sam: I write in opposition to proposed Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32. 1. The proposed rule would make more difficult our job of keeping the law of the circuit clear and consistent, increase the burden on the judges of our lower courts, make law practice more difficult and expensive, and impose colossal disadvantages on weak and poor litigants. None of the reasons the Advisory Committee Note advances in support of this rule is remotely persuasive. Circuits differ widely in size and legal culture, and the current situation-where the matter is left to the informed discretion of the court of appeals issuing the dispositions in question-has caused no demonstrable problems. I urge the Committee to abandon this ill-advised proposal and move on to more pressing matters. 1. The Proposed Rule Will Undermine Our Mission of Maintaining Uniformity and Clarity in the Law of the Circuit. The Ninth Circuit has adopted Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3-which would be preempted by proposed FRAP 32.1-in a sincere and considered effort to maintain the consistency and uniformity of our circuit case law. We are aware of complaints by a small but vociferous group of lawyers and litigants about the rule, X2 5 SoUT I R aNi, a A v \NU L E D A S Ad E N A - C a IOi I RP A 9 11 0 5 page 2 and we have considered and debated their objections on numerous occasions over the years.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Courts of the United States
    68 U.S. GOVERNMENT MANUAL The library is open to members of the bar of the Court, attorneys for the various Federal departments and agencies, and Members of Congress. Only members of the bar of the Court may practice before the Supreme Court. The term of the Court begins, by law, the first Monday in October of each year and continues as long as the business before the Court requires, usually until about the end of June. Six members constitute a quorum. Approximately 7,000 cases are passed upon in the course of a term. In addition, some 1,200 applications of various kinds are filed each year that can be acted upon by a single Justice. Jurisdiction According to the and Fact, with such Exceptions, and Constitution (art. III, sec. 2), ``[t]he under such Regulations as the Congress judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, shall make.'' in Law and Equity, arising under this Appellate jurisdiction has been Constitution, the Laws of the United conferred upon the Supreme Court by States, and Treaties made, or which shall various statutes, under the authority be made, under their Authority;Ðto all given Congress by the Constitution. The Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;Ðto all basic statute effective at this time in Cases of admiralty and maritime conferring and controlling jurisdiction of Jurisdiction;Ðto Controversies to which the Supreme Court may be found in 28 the United States shall be a Party;Ðto U.S.C. 1251, 1253, 1254, 1257±1259, Controversies between two or more and various special statutes.
    [Show full text]
  • The University of Wyoming College of Law at 100: a Brief History
    Wyoming Law Review Volume 21 Number 2 Article 1 2021 The University of Wyoming College of Law at 100: A Brief History Klint W. Alexander Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/wlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Alexander, Klint W. (2021) "The University of Wyoming College of Law at 100: A Brief History," Wyoming Law Review: Vol. 21 : No. 2 , Article 1. Available at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/wlr/vol21/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Wyoming Law Review by an authorized editor of Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. Alexander: The University of Wyoming College of Law at 100 WYOMING LAW REVIEW VOLUME 21 2021 NUMBER 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING COLLEGE OF LAW AT 100: A BRIEF HISTORY* Klint W. Alexander** I. Introduction .....................................................................................211 II. Justice and Legal Training on the Wyoming Frontier: The Early Years ..................................................................................212 III. The Founding of a Law School in Wyoming ..................................214 IV. The College of Law Takes Off .........................................................217 V. The Next Fifty Years: Beyond a Small, Rural Wyoming Law School .........................................................................................226 VI. Closing Out the Century ................................................................242
    [Show full text]
  • On Not Making Law
    GULATI.FMT 04/01/99 5:01 PM ON NOT MAKING LAW MITU GULATI* AND C.M.A. MCCAULIFF** I INTRODUCTION Consider the following scenario: A three-judge panel on a federal court of appeals has before it a complex se- curities law case. Each of the three judges on the panel is a former criminal law- yer. Among the three, the only experience any one of them has with securities law is a single course on the subject that one of them took thirty years ago. The central issue in the case is both difficult and close. Although there is no useful case law on point, the issue frequently arises both in litigation and in prac- tice. Many cases have involved the issue, but each court has found an alternative basis to decide the case before it, leaving the issue unresolved. Presently, at least two district court cases that raise a similar issue are on appeal in other circuits. If the panel tackles the issue squarely, its decision is likely to affect both the pending litigation in those other cases and the behavior of corporate actors in future transactions. The judges do not have strong feelings about how the case should come out. Each side has made out a strong case. The judges are, however, concerned about the amount of time and effort that writing an opinion in this case is likely to take. Given the lack of expertise, the judges are each concerned about the errors they might make in an opinion. Errors here are likely to be costly not only because the opinion will be binding precedent in this circuit, but also because the opinion is likely to influence other circuits.
    [Show full text]
  • Judiciary Supreme Court of the United States
    JUDICIARY SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES One First Street NE 20543, phone 479±3000 WILLIAM HUBBS REHNQUIST, Chief Justice of the United States; born in Milwaukee, WI, October 1, 1924; son of William Benjamin and Margery Peck Rehnquist; married to Natalie Cornell of San Diego, CA; children: James, Janet, and Nancy, member of Faith Lutheran Church, Arlington, VA; served in the U.S. Army Air Corps in this country and overseas from 1943±46; discharged with the rank of sergeant; Stanford University, B.A., M.A., 1948; Harvard University, M.A., 1950; Stanford University, LL.B., 1952, ranking first in class; Order of the Coif; member of the Board of Editors of the Stanford Law Review; law clerk for Justice Robert H. Jackson, Supreme Court of the United States, 1952±53; private practice of law, Phoenix, AZ, 1953±69; engaged in a general practice of law with primary emphasis on civil litigation; appointed Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, by President Nixon in January 1969; nominated Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States by President Nixon on October 21, 1971, confirmed December 10, 1971, sworn in on January 7, 1972; nominated by President Reagan as Chief Justice of the United States on June 17, 1986; sworn in on September 26, 1986. JOHN PAUL STEVENS, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; born in Chicago, IL, April 20, 1920; son of Ernest James and Elizabeth Street Stevens; A.B., University of Chicago, 1941, Phi Beta Kappa, Psi Upsilon; J.D. (magna cum laude), Northwestern University, 1947, Order of the Coif, Phi Delta Phi, co-editor, Illinois Law Review; married to Maryan Mulholland; children: John Joseph, Kathryn Jedlicka, Elizabeth Jane Sesemann, and Susan Roberta Mullen; entered active duty U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Branch
    JUDICIAL BRANCH THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES United States Supreme Court Building One First Street NE., Washington, DC 20543 Phone, 202±479±3000 Members: Chief Justice of the United States WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST Associate Justices JOHN PAUL STEVENS, SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR, ANTONIN SCALIA,A NTHONY M. KENNEDY, DAVID H. SOUTER, CLARENCE THOMAS,R UTH BADER GINSBURG, STEPHEN G. BREYER Officers: Clerk WILLIAM K. SUTER Reporter of Decisions FRANK D. WAGNER Librarian SHELLEY L. DOWLING Marshal DALE E. BOSLEY Article III, section 1, of the Constitution of the United States provides that ``[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.'' The Supreme Court of the United States was created in accordance with this provision and by authority of the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789 (1 Stat. 73). It was organized on February 2, 1790. The Supreme Court comprises the Chief Justice of the United States and such number of Associate Justices as may be fixed by Congress. Under that authority, and by virtue of act of June 25, 1948 (28 U.S.C. 1), the number of Associate Justices is eight. Power to nominate the Justices is vested in the President of the United States, and appointments are made with the advice and consent of the Senate. Article III, section 1, of the Constitution further provides that ``[t]he Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.'' A Justice may, if so desired, retire at the age of 70 after serving for 10 years as a Federal judge or at age 65 after 15 years of service.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Branch
    JUDICIAL BRANCH THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES United States Supreme Court Building One First Street NE., Washington, DC 20543 Phone, 202±479±3000 Members: Chief Justice of the United States WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST Associate Justices JOHN PAUL STEVENS, SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR, ANTONIN SCALIA,A NTHONY M. KENNEDY, DAVID H. SOUTER, CLARENCE THOMAS,R UTH BADER GINSBURG, STEPHEN G. BREYER Officers: Clerk WILLIAM K. SUTER Reporter of Decisions FRANK D. WAGNER Librarian SHELLEY L. DOWLING Marshal DALE E. BOSLEY Article III, section 1, of the Constitution of the United States provides that ``[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.'' The Supreme Court of the United States was created in accordance with this provision and by authority of the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789 (1 Stat. 73). It was organized on February 2, 1790. The Supreme Court comprises the Chief Justice of the United States and such number of Associate Justices as may be fixed by Congress. Under that authority, and by virtue of act of June 25, 1948 (28 U.S.C. 1), the number of Associate Justices is eight. Power to nominate the Justices is vested in the President of the United States, and appointments are made with the advice and consent of the Senate. Article III, section 1, of the Constitution further provides that ``[t]he Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.'' A Justice may, if so desired, retire at the age of 70 after serving for 10 years as a Federal judge or at age 65 after 15 years of service.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States Government Manual 2000/2001
    The United States Government Manual 2000/2001 Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration Revised June 1, 2000 Raymond A. Mosley, Director of the Federal Register. John W. Carlin, Archivist of the United States. On the cover: The Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial during the restoration of the monument (from the holdings of the National Park Service). In preparation for the bicentennial of the Nation's Capital and the new millennium, the National Park Service embarked on a mission to repair the external damage to the monument caused by weather and time and renovate various systems of the interior of the monument. The monument, which opened to the public in 1888, was erected in honor of the Nation's first President, George Washington, and is the tallest freestanding masonry structure in the world. The restoration project includes repairing the stonework, cleaning the facade, modernizing the heating and cooling systems, improving the elevator, and updating the facilities and refurbishing the exhibits on the observation level. To beautify the monument during its restoration while creating a safe workplace for restoration workers, National Park Service constructors erected scaffolding that, in the words of designer Michael Graves, ``echoes the obelisk's beauty even while covering its exterior.'' For more information on the Washington Monument and its restoration, scheduled for completion in 2000, visit the National Park Service Internet site at www.nps.gov/wamo. Special thanks to Terry J. Adams, Office of Public Affairs, National Park Service for his cooperation and permission to use the photograph of the monument for the cover of the Manual.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Courts of the United States
    68 U.S. GOVERNMENT MANUAL include the Administrative Assistant to of procedure to be followed by the the Chief Justice, the Clerk, the Reporter lower courts of the United States. of Decisions, the Librarian, the Marshal, Court Term The term of the Court the Director of Budget and Personnel, begins on the first Monday in October the Court Counsel, the Curator, the and lasts until the first Monday in Director of Data Systems, and the Public October of the next year. Approximately 7,000 cases are filed with the Court in Information Officer. the course of a term, and some 1,200 Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate applications of various kinds are filed jurisdiction has been conferred upon the each year that can be acted upon by a Supreme Court by various statutes under single Justice. the authority given Congress by the Access to Facilities The Supreme Court Constitution. The basic statute effective is open to the public from 9 a.m. to 4:30 at this time in conferring and controlling p.m., Monday through Friday, except on jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may Federal legal holidays. Unless the Court be found in 28 U.S.C. 1251, 1253, or Chief Justice orders otherwise, the 1254, 1257±1259, and various special Clerk's office is open from 9 a.m. to 5 statutes. Congress has no authority to p.m., Monday through Friday, except on change the original jurisdiction of this Federal legal holidays. The library is Court. open to members of the bar of the Court, Rulemaking Power Congress has from attorneys for the various Federal time to time conferred upon the departments and agencies, and Members Supreme Court power to prescribe rules of Congress.
    [Show full text]