155 F. Supp. 3d 70
D.D.C.2016Background
- In 2012 a drone strike in Khashamir, Yemen killed five men, including Salem and Waleed bin Ali Jaber.
- The estates of Salem and Waleed sue the United States and named officials for TVPA violations and violations of customary international law.
- Faisal bin Ali Jaber seeks to litigate on behalf of Ahmed and Esam, the estate representatives, arguing they cannot travel to the United States due to security and political conditions.
- The complaint contends the strike was a signature-style operation targeting non-high-ranking individuals with no imminent threat.
- Defendants move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and other merits objections; the court considers jurisdiction first.
- The court holds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction and grants the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether next friend standing is proper here | Faisal satisfies Whitmore requirements by dedication and familial relationship. | Ahmed and Esam lack demonstrated inaccessibility to courts. | Ahmed and Esam have next friend standing at this stage. |
| Whether the political question doctrine bars the suit | Claims concern legal violations, not policy decisions | Foreign policy and national security decisions are non-justiciable | Political question doctrine bars the suit; dismissal warranted. |
| Whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over TVPA/ATS claims | TVPA/ATS claims are justiciable offenses for court resolution | Executive actions abroad fall within non-justiciable policy decisions | Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction; claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (U.S. 1990) (next friend standing framework)
- El-Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. United States, 607 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (political question with nonmanageable standards (en banc) )
- Schneider v. Kissinger, 412 F.3d 190 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (foreign policy/national security political questions)
- Bancoult v. McNamara, 445 F.3d 427 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (political question in foreign policy decisions)
- Harbury v. Hayden, 522 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (tort claims implicating executive foreign policy decisions)
- Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta, 35 F. Supp. 3d 56 (D.D.C. 2014) (district-court treatment of drone strike claims)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1983) (standing; injunction considerations)
- Ev-Shifa (El-Shifa) Pharm. Indus. Co. v. United States, 607 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (mixed questions and political question framework (en banc discussion))