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.