325 F. Supp. 3d 68
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Pro se petitioner David Keanu Sai, claiming to represent a restored Hawaiian Kingdom, sued the U.S. President, military and Hawaii's governor, alleging the 1893 U.S. invasion/annexation of Hawaii violated war crimes statutes, the Hague and Geneva Conventions, the APA, and international law.
- Sai sought injunctions under the All Writs Act and APA and asserted claims under 18 U.S.C. § 2441 and international conventions; he named many foreign leaders as nominal respondents.
- The petition reprises arguments from an earlier suit (Sai v. Clinton) challenging U.S. recognition/annexation of Hawaii and invoking executive recognition doctrine.
- The government defendants challenged jurisdiction and the availability of private causes of action for criminal statutes and international treaties; court also considered political-question and APA bars.
- The district court dismissed the petition sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction, holding the claims presented nonjusticiable political questions and that statutory/treaty provisions cited did not create private rights of action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| All Writs Act jurisdiction | Sai invoked All Writs to enjoin Executive actions regarding Hawaii | Court lacks underlying jurisdictional statute to which All Writs could "aid" | Dismissed — no independent jurisdictional statute; All Writs unavailable |
| 18 U.S.C. § 2441 (war crimes) | Section 2441 supports private civil suit alleging U.S. war crimes in Hawaii | Criminal statutes provide no private right of action; enforcement is by DOJ | Dismissed — § 2441 does not create a private cause of action |
| Hague & Geneva Conventions | Conventions provide enforceable rights to challenge U.S. actions in federal court | Hague/Geneva generally do not confer private judicially enforceable rights | Dismissed — treaties do not create private rights here |
| Political-question / APA barrier | Executive recognition and historical documents show Hawaii remained sovereign; political-question doctrine inapplicable; APA relief proper | Determinations of sovereignty and foreign relations are committed to political branches; APA and political-question doctrines bar review | Dismissed — nonjusticiable political question; APA relief unavailable for these Executive/sovereignty claims |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Asemani, 455 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir.) (All Writs Act requires independent jurisdictional basis)
- In re al-Nashiri, 791 F.3d 71 (D.C. Cir.) (mandamus/All Writs principles require an underlying jurisdictional statute)
- Peavey v. Holder, 657 F. Supp. 2d 180 (D.D.C.) (reluctance to infer private right of action from criminal statutes)
- Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, 511 U.S. 164 (private rights not to be inferred from criminal statutes)
- Jawad v. Gates, 113 F. Supp. 3d 251 (D.D.C.) (§ 2441 does not create a private cause of action)
- Nattah v. Bush, 770 F. Supp. 2d 193 (D.D.C.) (Geneva and Hague Conventions do not generally create private causes of action)
- Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774 (D.C. Cir.) (international conventions not judicially enforceable by private parties)
- Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (Geneva Convention may inform habeas claims for POWs but is not a general private right of action)
- Japan Whaling Ass'n v. Am. Cetacean Soc'y, 478 U.S. 221 (political question doctrine excludes certain foreign-relations disputes)
- Schneider v. Kissinger, 412 F.3d 190 (D.C. Cir.) (political-question doctrine principles)
- Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (political questions in foreign-relations context)
- Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (APA exclusions for non-agency governmental entities)
- Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202 (D.C. Cir.) (APA review preserved but courts may dismiss on appropriate legal/equitable grounds)