753 F.3d 1327
D.C. Cir.2014Background
- Detained individuals at Guantanamo Bay were CSRT-cleared but remained in detention for varying periods from 2001–2006.
- Hasam, Muhammad, and Allaithi were cleared by CSRTs, yet stayed detained post-clearance and alleged post-clearance abuses.
- Plaintiffs asserted ATS, Geneva Convention, Vienna Convention, First Amendment, Due Process, RFRA, and FCRA/FTCA claims against officials who authorized or supervised detention.
- District Court dismissed ATS claims as FTCA claims and concluded Rasul II foreclosed relief; the government certification of scope of employment was prima facie.
- Court considers whether defendants acted outside the scope of employment for post-clearance detention and related abuses, under the Restatement factors and case law; Rasul I remains governing in scope analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-CSRT clearance detention falls outside the scope of employment. | Hasam/Muhammad/Allaithi argue post-clearance detention and abuses are ultra vires. | Rumsfeld et al. contend post-clearance detention remains within scope. | No; conduct remained within scope of employment; post-clearance detention kept within the master’s overall objectives. |
| Whether post-clearance abuses were within the scope of employment. | Plaintiffs contend abuses are outside the scope due to CSRT clearance. | Abuses were a foreseeable part of detention and related to master’s security interests. | Yes; abuses were incidental to detention and security maintenance, within the scope. |
| Whether RFRA, Bivens, and Vienna Convention claims survive given Rasul precedents. | RFRA/Bivens/Vienna claims should proceed per applicable law. | Rasul precedents bar these claims or deprive standing; qualified immunity and non-private Vienna right of action foreclose. | RFRA and Bivens barred; Vienna not sufficiently pleaded; limits based on Rasul decisions. |
| Whether remand for amendment to cure pleadings is appropriate. | Plaintiffs request remand to amend after Rasul rulings. | Remand not warranted; failure to amend after Rasul I/II precludes reopening. | No remand; district court affirmed dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rasul v. Myers, 512 F.3d 644 (D.C. Cir. (Rasul I)) (scope-of-employment in detention context; later superseded by Rasul II in part)
- Rasul v. Myers, 563 F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (Rasul II; reinforces scope analysis and status of ATS claims)
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (Supreme Court 2013) (limits ATS extraterritorial reach; private rights implications)
- Ballenger, 444 F.3d 659 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Restatement factor application; master-servant doctrine)
- Harbury v. Hayden, 522 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (liberal interpretation of scope of employment; foreseeability)
- Weinberg v. Johnson, 518 A.2d 985 (D.C. 1986) (intentional deviation from employment for sole personal purposes)
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. Reddick, 398 A.2d 27 (D.C. Ct. App. 1979) (foreseeable conduct within scope of employment; direct outgrowth test)
- Ali v. Rumsfeld, 649 F.3d 762 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (post-ICS detention context; precedent for scope and RFRA)
- Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (prison security and detention context at Guantanamo)