Arnold v. Islamic Republic of Iran
787 F. Supp. 2d 37
D.D.C.2011Background
- This case arises from the 1983 Beirut Marine barracks bombing; plaintiffs seek accountability from Iran under the state-sponsored terrorism framework,” and the court consolidated this case with related §1605A actions.
- Congress created §1605A in 2008 NDAA to replace §1605(a)(7) and to authorize special masters and new remedies, including retroactive application.
- The court previously addressed the retroactivity of §1605A and ruled on compensation for work by a special master pre- and post-enactment in related cases.
- Plaintiffs sought payment for Dr. Meek’s work, including pre-2008 tasks, arguing §1605A(e)(2) authorizes retroactive payment.
- The government argued §1605A(e)(1)–(2) only cover work by special masters appointed under §1605A and that pre-NDAA work lacks statutory authorization, plus treasury constraints.
- The court must determine whether pre-NDAA work can be compensated for cases converted under §1083(c)(2) or §1083(c)(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1605A(e)(2) authorizes payment for pre‑NDAA special‑master work. | Meek pre‑NDAA work in §1605(a)(7) cases refiled under §1605A should be payable. | No pre‑NDAA compensation since §1605A(e)(1) required appointment under §1605A and retroactivity is limited. | Pre‑NDAA work may be payable when refiled under §1083(c)(2) (prior cases), not under §1083(c)(3). |
| Does retroactivity apply to 'prior case procedures' §1083(c)(2) conversions? | Congress intended retroactive application for cases converted under §1083(c)(2). | Retroactivity not clearly extended to pre‑NDAA work. | The NDAA §1083(c)(2) retroactively covers pre‑NDAA work in prior‑case conversions. |
| Does retroactivity apply to 'related case procedures' §1083(c)(3) conversions? | Related‑case filings should follow retroactivity as well. | §1083(c)(3) lacks explicit retroactive directive. | §1083(c)(3) lacks retroactivity; related‑case conversions not compensable for pre‑NDAA work. |
| Did plaintiffs file timely to invoke the prior‑case procedures? | Plaintiffs amended and pursued related procedures consistent with §1605A. | Timeliness requirement under §1083(c)(2) was not met. | Plaintiffs failed to invoke prior‑case procedures timely; limited to post‑Nov 30, 2009 work. |
| May the court order pre‑NDAA payment given treasury constraints? | No constitutional bar; NDAA authorizes payments. | Payment would encroach on Congress’s control of funds. | No retroactive payment pre‑NDAA due to timing and procedural constraints; limits to post‑Nov 30, 2009 work. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Islamic Republic of Iran Terrorism Litig., 659 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D.D.C. 2009) (Discusses retroactivity and special master payments in NDAA context)
- Rimkus v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 750 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D.D.C. 2010) (Retroactivity of §1083(c) prior‑case procedures)
- Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2010) (Retroactive application of §1605A to pending cases)
- Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 742 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010) (Related actions under NDAA mechanics)
- Felter v. Salazar, 679 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010) (Retroactivity and application of NDAA provisions)