Arkan Ali v. Donald Rumsfeld
396 U.S. App. D.C. 381
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Afghan and Iraqi detainees allege torture and cruel treatment by U.S. military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan facilities from 2003–2004.
- Plaintiffs asserted six causes of action: due process/5th Amendment, 8th Amendment cruel punishment, law of nations under ATS, treaty violations, Geneva Conventions, and declaratory relief.
- District court dismissed on FRCP 12(b)(1)/(6) grounds and for qualified immunity; Westfall Act immunities applied to Geneva Conventions/ATS claims and FTCA exhaustion requirement applied.
- Court held plaintiffs’ Bivens claims were barred by qualified immunity and by the special factors counseling against judicial intervention in wartime foreign affairs.
- ATS claims were treated as claims against the United States under FTCA due to scope-of-employment, with no exhaustion of administrative remedies; district court dismissed for lack of exhaustion.
- This court affirmed, holding the Westfall Act precludes individual-capacity ATS claims unless ATS is read as a statute that itself creates a remedy, incorporating the law of nations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bivens claims are available against military officials abroad | Rasul II allows rights, suggesting no immunity for torture claims. | Special factors and wartime context foreclose Bivens liability; qualified immunity applies. | Bivens claims barred; qualified immunity applies. |
| Whether the ATS claims against officials are barred by the Westfall Act | ATS incorporates the law of nations; Westfall Act exception applies to claims under § 1350. | Westfall Act immunizes federal employees; ATS is jurisdictional and cannot fall within exception. | Westfall Act applies; district court proper to substitute United States and dismiss ATS claims for lack of exhaustion. |
| Whether the ATS itself incorporates the law of nations so as to allow a private right of action | Sosa opened door to private rights under ATS by incorporating law of nations. | ATS is purely jurisdictional and does not create new causes of action; cannot be violated. | ATS incorporates the law of nations; it can support a cause of action for torture, but Westfall Act analysis controls the result. |
| Whether the plaintiffs may obtain declaratory relief | Requests declaration that conduct was unlawful and violated various authorities. | No cognizable remediable right or standing to seek declaratory relief. | Declaratory relief denied; no cognizable remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (U.S. 2004) (ATS is jurisdictional but allows narrow common-law claims grounded in international law)
- Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980) (torture violates international norms; basis for ATS action)
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (U.S. 2008) (Suspension Clause extended to noncitizens at Guantanamo; limits outside-territory rights)
- Rasul v. Myers (Rasul II), 563 F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (qualified immunity and Boumediene do not extend Fifth/Eighth Amendment rights to aliens detained abroad)
- Rasul v. Myers (Rasul I), 512 F.3d 644 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Guantanamo detainees lack rights; Bivens claims lacking clearly established rights)
- United States v. Smith, 499 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1991) (Gonzalez Act vs Westfall Act distinctions; statutory exception context)
- Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (debate on scope of ATS; congressional response via Westfall Act)
- Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (foreign policy considerations limit damages against officials; later overruled by Westfall Act)
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (see above), 542 U.S. 692 (U.S. 2004) (see above)