Alan Gross v. United States
413 U.S. App. D.C. 125
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Grosses sued USAID contractor DAI and the United States for torts arising from Mr. Gross’s activities in Cuba under the FTCA.
- DAI settled, but the United States moved to dismiss under the FTCA foreign-country exception, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(k).
- District court dismissed, holding injuries stemmed from Mr. Gross’s imprisonment in Cuba and thus barred by the foreign-country exception.
- Grosses appeal, arguing derivative economic injuries fall outside the exception and challenging equal protection as applied.
- This court reviews de novo and accepts the complaints’ well-pleaded facts for purposes of the jurisdictional ruling.
- Court affirms dismissal, holding the foreign-country exception bars all FTCA claims based on or derivative of Cuba injuries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the foreign-country exception bar FTCA claims here? | Grosses contend injuries are derivative and/or not arising in Cuba, challenging the exception's scope. | The exception bars claims arising in a foreign country or derivative injuries, regardless of where harms occur. | Yes; foreign-country exception bars. |
| Are the Grosses’ economic injuries not derivative of Cuba injuries? | Economic harms occurred in the United States and are not derivative of Cuba injuries. | Injuries are derivative of Mr. Gross’s imprisonment in Cuba; Harbury controls. | Derivatives barred; injuries are connection to Cuba. |
| Does the Equal Protection challenge fail under rational basis review? | Foreign-country exception discriminates among U.S. citizens injured domestically vs abroad. | Rational basis exists to protect U.S. treasury; no constitutional violation as applied. | No equal-protection violation; rational basis upheld. |
| Did the district court err by not permitting discovery or conducting a fact-specific analysis? | Discovery could reveal a meaningful choice-of-law analysis or different purpose. | No necessary discovery; no jurisdictional error; record not required for rational-basis review. | No error; discovery not required. |
| Was the district court’s attribution of Congress’s purpose to the foreign-country exception correct? | Court misframed the exception’s purpose beyond Congress’s stated rationale. | Properly rejected framing and aligned with Congress’s concern about Treasury exposure. | Correct; no error in purpose attribution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (U.S. 2004) (foreign-country exception bars claims arising in foreign country regardless of where the tort occurred)
- Harbury v. Hayden, 522 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (derivative injuries remain barred under foreign-country exception)
- Smith v. United States, 507 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1993) (antarktic example confirming broader scope of the exception and its purpose)
- Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander, 337 U.S. 562 (U.S. 1949) (illustrates consideration of statutory purpose vs. discriminatory application)
- Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (U.S. 2013) (upheld rational basis scrutiny in a facial constitutional challenge based on current conditions)
- Richmond Medical Center for Women v. Herring, 570 F.3d 165 (4th Cir. 2009) (illustrates limited need for a fact-specific record in some as-applied challenges)
- Edwards v. District of Columbia, 755 F.3d 996 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (reiterates substantive rule of law for as-applied challenges)
- Armour v. City of Indianapolis, 132 S. Ct. 2073 (U.S. 2012) (recognizes rational-basis framework for equal-protection challenges)