Alimanestianu v. United States
888 F.3d 1374
Fed. Cir.2018Background
- Mihai Alimanestianu, a U.S. citizen, was killed in the 1989 UTA Flight 772 bombing; plaintiffs obtained a $6.9 billion district-court judgment against Libya (appellants’ share ≈ $1.297 billion), which was on appeal.
- On the day defendants appealed, the U.S. and Libya entered a Claims Settlement Agreement; Libya deposited funds and Congress enacted the Libyan Claims Resolution Act restoring Libya’s sovereign immunity.
- The U.S. Government moved to intervene, espouse the U.S. nationals’ claims, vacate the district-court judgment, and dismiss the suits; the D.C. Circuit granted the motion and the district court dismissed the case.
- The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission adjudicated claims under the settlement; appellants received awards (e.g., $10 million to Mihai’s estate; $200,000 to each child) that were substantially less than their district-court award.
- Appellants sued in the Court of Federal Claims under the Fifth Amendment seeking just compensation (~$1.286 billion) for an alleged per se taking when the Government espoused and extinguished their claims.
- The Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment for the Government, applying a regulatory (Penn Central) takings analysis and holding no compensable taking; the Federal Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether governmental espousal and vacatur of pending judgments against a foreign sovereign is a per se taking requiring categorical compensation | Government’s espousal and extinguishment of appellants’ claims/judgment was a direct appropriation of property akin to Horne’s physical appropriation, so per se taking applies | Espousal/restoration of foreign sovereign immunity is not a physical appropriation; foreign-relations context makes Penn Central factors controlling | Not a per se taking; Horne does not displace precedents—espousal of claims against foreign sovereigns is analyzed under Penn Central and is not a per se physical taking |
| Whether Horne overruled Belk/Abrahim-Youri and mandates per se treatment for espousal cases | Horne’s statement that physical appropriation gives rise to per se taking requires compensation without Penn Central inquiry | Horne addressed domestic tangible-property appropriation and did not disturb long-standing espousal/foreign-relations precedents | Horne did not undermine Belk and Abrahim-Youri; Penn Central remains relevant in espousal context |
| Whether appellants had reasonable investment-backed expectations in enforceable recovery of their judgment against Libya | Appellants relied on their district-court judgment and expected payment/enforcement | At time of injury Libya had sovereign immunity; any recovery was speculative and contingent on foreign cooperation or coercion | No reasonable investment-backed expectations; recovery was speculative |
| Whether the economic impact of espousal demanded just compensation | Appellants point to the large shortfall between district-court judgment and Commission awards | Government showed appellants received awards they likely would not have obtained absent settlement; public interest in foreign affairs weighs heavily | Economic-impact factor favors Government; no compensable taking under Penn Central |
Key Cases Cited
- Horne v. Dep’t of Agric., 135 S. Ct. 2419 (2015) (per se rule for direct appropriation of tangible property)
- Belk v. United States, 858 F.2d 706 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (espousal of claims in foreign-relations context analyzed under Penn Central factors)
- Abrahim-Youri v. United States, 139 F.3d 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (affirming no compensable taking where government espoused and settled claims)
- Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981) (executive authority to settle claims against foreign governments)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of N.Y., 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (three-factor regulatory-taking test)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) (physical invasion as per se taking)
- Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (total denial of economically viable use as per se taking)
- Aviation & Gen. Ins. Co. v. United States, 882 F.3d 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (reiterating that espousal/restoration of foreign sovereign immunity is not a physical invasion)