Justia International Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant and a co-defendant were extradited from Panama following their indictment on one count of conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, intending or knowing that it would be imported into the United States from Columbia, Panama, Nicaragua, and elsewhere outside of the United States. Appellant challenged his conviction and sentence. The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over the charged conspiracy because appellant's extradition conformed with the governing treaty between the United States and Panama, and appellant waived his venue challenge by not raising it in the district court. Appellant identified no plain error affecting his substantial rights in the district court's acceptance of his guilty plea. Further, appellant failed to show he was denied effective assistance of counsel as would entitle him to reversal of his conviction. Because appellant presented no grounds for setting aside the judgment based on his guilty plea, the waiver of his right to appeal a below-Guidelines sentence set forth in the plea agreement was valid. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal of his sentence and affirmed the judgment of conviction View "In Re: Sealed Case" on Justia Law

While providing security for a U.S. State Department convoy in the Gaza Strip, Mark Parsons was killed by a roadside bomb. Parsons's estate and his family sued the Palestinian Authority under the Antiterrorism Act of 1991, 18 U.S.C. 2333, alleging that the Authority had provided material support for and conspired with the terrorist or terrorists who detonated the bomb. The court held that, although it agreed with the district court that the family's conspiracy claim theories were too speculative to survive summary judgment, the court believed a reasonable juror could conclude that Authority employees provided material support to the bomber. Accordingly, the court affirmed with respect to the conspiracy claim but reversed as to material support. View "Estate Of Mark Parsons, et al. v. Palestinian Authority, et al." on Justia Law

This was an appeal from the denial of the petition of a detainee at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay for a writ of habeas corpus. At issue was whether the district court erred in determining that the detainee was being lawfully detained on the record as it stood before that court and whether the district court's procedural errors deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to develop a record upon which he could challenge his detention. The court rejected the detainee's contention that the district court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous and because those findings were enough to establish that the detainee was "part of the Taliban or al Qaeda," the court rejected his contention that the record before the court was insufficient to establish the lawfulness of his detention. Given the time the detainee's attorneys had after their receipt of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal record, the district court's grant of leave to file an amended traverse, and the absence of any subsequent request for additional time or discovery, the court held that the detainee had failed to show that he was prejudiced by the denial of the thirty-day continuance. The court also held that, in light of the circumstances, there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's refusal to issue further discovery orders without a showing that there was a basis for believing that the requests satisfied the Case Management Order's predicate conditions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of the petition. View "Al Alwi, et al. v. Obama, et al." on Justia Law

The United States detained Nazul Gul and Adel Hamad for several years at the Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay and during that time, each filed with the district court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Prior to any hearing on the merits of their petitions, the United States transferred the detainees to the custody of foreign sovereigns and did not then rescind their designation as "enemy combatants." Gul and Hamad wanted to continue litigating their habeas petitions but the district court dismissed their petitions as moot because they were no longer held by the United States. Gul and Hamad subsequently appealed, arguing among other things, that their petitions were not moot because they continued to be burdened by the collateral consequences of their prior detention and continuing designation. The court held that, having determined that Gul and Hamad identified no injury sufficient to bring their cases within the court's jurisdiction under Article III, the court affirmed the order of the district court. View "Gul v. Obama, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Americans taken hostage in Iran in November 1979, and their families brought a new complaint, five years after the dismissal of their suit, in the district court relying on Congress's 2008 amendments to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), Pub. L. No. 94-583, 90 Stat. 2891. At issue was whether the 2008 amendments to the FSIA reneged on the promise of the United States in the Algiers Accords to bar plaintiffs' suit. The court held that because the ambiguity in section 1083(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, 28 U.S.C. 1605A(a), regarding whether plaintiffs, whose case was not pending at the time of enactment, could file under the new terrorism cause of action, the court was required again to conclude that Congress had not abrogated the Algiers Accords. The court also rejected plaintiffs' alternative argument that the reenactment and partially revised jurisdictional provisions of the FSIA abrogated the Algiers Accord where these provisions were not meaningfully different than they were when presented to the court in plaintiffs' original suit. Accordingly, the order of the district court was affirmed. View "Roeder, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a contract between the Indonesian government and the Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon), a United States corporation, and several of its wholly owned subsidiaries where Exxon operated a large natural gas extraction and processing facility in the Aceh province. Plaintiffs were fifteen Indonesian villagers. Eleven villagers filed a complaint in 2001 alleging that Exxon's security forces committed murder, torture, sexual assault, battery, and false imprisonment in violation of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), 28 U.S.C. 1350, and various common law torts. Four villagers alleged that in 2007, Exxon committed various common law torts. All plaintiffs alleged that Exxon took actions both in the United States and at its facility in the Aceh province that resulted in their injuries. Plaintiffs challenged the subsequent dismissal of their claims and Exxon filed a cross-appeal, inter alia, raising corporate immunity for the first time. The court concluded that aiding and abetting liability was well established under the ATS. The court further concluded that neither the text, history, nor purpose of the ATS supported corporate immunity for torts based on heinous conduct allegedly committed by its agents in violation of the law of nations. The court affirmed the dismissal of the TVPA claims in view of recent precedent of the court. The court concluded, however, that Exxon's objections to justiciability were unpersuasive and that the district court erred in ruling that plaintiffs lacked prudential standing to bring their non-federal tort claims and in the choice of law determination. The court finally concluded that Exxon's challenge to the diversity of parties in the complaint at issue was to be resolved initially by the district court. Therefore, the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' TVPA claims, reversed the dismissal of the ATS claims at issue, along with plaintiffs' non-federal tort claims, and remanded the cases to the district court. View "John Doe VIII, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, four Afghan and five Iraqi citizens captured and subsequently held in Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively, by the United States military sued defendants, seeking damages and declaratory relief as the result of their treatment while in U.S. custody. Each plaintiff asserted two Bivens claims, namely, defendants tortured him in violation of his due process right under the Fifth Amendment and defendants' conduct constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiffs also brought claims under the ATS based on defendants' alleged infliction of "prolonged arbitrary detention," "torture," and "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their constitutional claims and ATS claims. The court held that defendants were protected from plaintiffs' constitutional claims by qualified immunity. The court also held that, even if defendants were not shielded by qualified immunity and plaintiffs could claim the protections of the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, the court would decline to sanction a Bivens cause of action because special factors counseled against doing so. The court further held that plaintiffs' claim under the ATS alleged a violation of the law of nations, not of the ATS, and therefore, did not violate a statute of the United States within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 2679(b)(2)(B). The court finally held that because plaintiffs have not alleged a cognizable cause of action, they have no basis upon which to seek declaratory relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment of dismissal. View "Ali v. Rumsfeld" on Justia Law

Appellant and his wife filed an action against the Palestinian Authority ("PA") and the Palestinian Liberation Organization ("PLO") seeking to recover damages under the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"), 28 U.S.C. 1350, where appellant was arrested by PA security officers and confined and tortured for several months. At issue was whether the district court erred in dismissing the action for failure to state a claim. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court where the complaint did not raise a claim cognizable within the jurisdictional grant of the ATS and further concluded that the district court did not err in declining to exercise pendant jurisdiction under the alleged negligence claim under Israeli law. View "Shafi, et al. v. Palestinian Authority, et al." on Justia Law

The families of two American contractors beheaded by terrorists in Iraq sued the Syrian Arab Republic ("Syria") in federal court and when Syria did not respond, the district court eventually entered a default judgment in favor of the families. At issue was whether the district court's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) order was in error and its default judgment void. Also at issue was whether remand was appropriate to give the district court opportunity to grant further relief of Syria. The court affirmed the judgment and held that the families adequately effected service of process against Syria when they first filed suit under former section 1605(a)(7) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA"), 28 U.S.C. 1602, et seq., where, before the district court entered judgment, the families removed to convert their action and proceeded under the new section 1605A in accordance with section 1083 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 ("NDAA"), Pub. L. No. 110-181, 122 Stat. 3. The court also held that under section 1083 of the NDAA, the families did not have to serve Syria anew because the statutory text did not treat converted claims as new claims for relief. The court further held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(a)(2) did not apply in this case given the FSIA's specific statutory service of process provision. Accordingly, there was no need to remand the case to grant Syria other relief.

Appellee filed an action against appellants, sisters who were traveling together aboard Pan Am Airways Flight 73 when Libyan terrorists hijacked the plane and held it for sixteen hours on the tarmac in Pakistan, seeking to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitrarion Act ("Arbitration Act"), 9 U.S.C. 4. While the suit was pending, the United States and Libya reached a diplomatic settlement where Libya agreed to deposit $1.5 billion into a settlement fund and Congress provided for the implementation of the settlement fund for all terrorism-related litigation against Libya in American courts. At issue was whether the district court properly granted a motion to compel arbitration under section 4 of the Arbitration Act. The court affirmed the district court's grant of the motion to compel and held that the Libyan Claims Resolution Act, 28 U.S.C. 1605A, did not prevent the district court from ordering arbitration of the underlying dispute.