Al-Quraishi v. L-3 Services, Inc.
657 F.3d 201
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Seventy-two Iraqi detainees allege torture and mistreatment by L-3 translators and related personnel at Abu Ghraib and 20 other Iraqi sites.
- Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy among L-3, its employees, and some government personnel to torture and cover up the acts.
- L-3 moves to dismiss, asserting law-of-war immunity, derivative sovereign immunity, and political-question nonjusticiability, among other grounds.
- District court denies in part, rejecting preemption under federal law (Saleh) and other defenses; allows ongoing discovery.
- Fourth Circuit reverses, holding state-law tort claims are preempted and displaced by federal law under Saleh, and remands for dismissal.
- Dissent argues collateral-order jurisdiction is lacking to decide preemption, and would dismiss the preemption issue for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court's pretrial denial on preemption is immediately appealable | Alleges collateral order review is proper under Cohen/Will. | Preemption denial is not immunity; no collateral-order appeal. | Collateral order jurisdiction applies; preemption review is immediately appealable. |
| Whether Saleh preemption precludes state-law tort claims in this battlefield context | State tort claims are preempted by federal wartime policy. | Saleh preemption should block state-law claims as displaced. | State-law tort claims are preempted and displaced by federal law. |
| Whether Boyle/Saleh preemption constitutes immunity from suit | Preemption functions as an immunity defense to liability. | Preemption is a defense to liability, not immunity. | Saleh preemption is not immunity; but courts may review under collateral-order framework. |
| Whether the district court's denial of immunity under the laws of war should be reviewed on appeal | Immunity denial is appealable as a collateral-order ruling. | Immunity rulings are not final; review should await final judgment. | Immunity denial is appealable under collateral-order doctrine; related issues may be reviewed. |
| Whether the court has pendent jurisdiction to decide preemption if collateral-order review fails | Pendent review is permissible to decide intertwined issues. | Pendent jurisdiction is unavailable absent Cohen collateral-order criteria. | Pendent jurisdiction to decide preemption is not available; collateral-order criteria control. |
Key Cases Cited
- Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (2006) (collateral order doctrine prerequisites)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) (final decisions; collateral-order exception scope)
- Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009) (limits collateral-order use; final-judgment rule)
- Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (1994) (collateral-order review; prudential use)
- Saleh v. Titan Corp., 580 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (preemption; battlefield-like context; policy)
- Rodriguez v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 627 F.3d 1259 (9th Cir. 2010) (preemption not immunity; collateral-order not required)
- Martin v. Halliburton, 618 F.3d 476 (5th Cir. 2010) (combatant-activities preemption; not immunities)
- Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) (presidential immunity; immediate appealability)
- Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977) (double jeopardy appealability; collateral limits)
- Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 473 F.3d 345 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (separation-of-powers defenses; review barriers)