Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran
396 U.S. App. D.C. 183
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Roeder and others, Americans held hostage in Iran in 1979, sue Iran and the United States for damages.
- Algiers Accords promised to bar prosecution against Iran for actions related to the hostage crisis.
- Roeder I held FSIA amendments (2001–2002) did not abrogate the Accords’ bar on suit.
- 2008 FSIA amendments created a private right of action for state sponsorship of terrorism and reenacted related jurisdiction.
- Roeder filed a new action under § 1605A(c); district court dismissed, court of appeals reviews whether 2008 amendments abrogate the Accords.
- Court must evaluate if § 1083(c)(3) and related provisions create a clear statement sufficient to override the Accords.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the 2008 FSIA amendments abrogate the Algiers Accords? | Roeder contends 2008 amendments create a federal cause of action that overrides the Accords. | United States argues the amendments do not contain a clear statement abrogating the Accords. | Amendments do not clearly abrogate the Accords. |
| Is Roeder I a 'related action' under § 1083(c)(3)? | Roeder I was timely and would allow revival under § 1083(c)(3). | Roeder I was not pending at enactment; § 1083(c)(3) does not clearly cover it. | Roeder I was not clearly encompassed; ambiguity remains about related-action status. |
| Does ambiguity in § 1083(c)(3) prevent overriding the Accords? | Roeder contends the ambiguity supports reviving the action under § 1605A. | Ambiguity cannot override an executive agreement absent clear expression. | Statute is ambiguous; cannot override the Accords. |
| Would Roeder's current suit qualify as a 'related action' under § 1083(c)(3) if timely and ongoing? | Roeder argues the language contemplates enabling related actions despite timing. | Legislation requires a pending action; Roeder's case was not pending. | Roeder's case does not clearly qualify; no revival under § 1083(c)(3). |
Key Cases Cited
- Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 333 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (held FSIA amendments did not abrogate Algiers Accords)
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp., 466 U.S. 243 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (clear-statement rule for abrogating treaties or executive agreements)
- Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (U.S. Supreme Court 1991) (clear-statement principle in statutory interpretation)
- Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Kempthorne, 472 F.3d 872 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (importance of explicit congressional expression when altering law)
- City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) (presumption against abrogation of existing commitments without clear language)