Sarah Roe v. Linda Howard, 917 F.3d 229

Background

Roe, an Ethiopian woman, lived and worked as a live-in housekeeper for Linda and Russell Howard at U.S. Embassy housing in Sana’a, Yemen in 2007; she alleged repeated sexual assaults by Russell and that Linda was aware and facilitated his conduct.
Roe sued Linda under the TVPA civil remedy, 18 U.S.C. § 1595, alleging violations of § 1589 (forced labor), § 1590 (trafficking), § 1591 (sex trafficking), and § 1594 (conspiracy). Jury found Linda liable and awarded $3 million (later entered as $1M compensatory, $2M punitive).
Linda moved post-trial under Rule 50 to set aside the verdict, arguing § 1595 did not apply extraterritorially in 2007 and 2008 amendments were not retroactive; she also challenged admission of testimony from a subsequent housekeeper (Jane Doe).
District court denied relief, concluding the presumption against extraterritoriality was rebutted (Kiobel/Al Shimari analysis) and alternatively that § 1596 (2008) could apply retroactively; it admitted Doe’s testimony under Rules 404(b)/415 and Rule 804(b)(3).
The Fourth Circuit affirmed, adopting a RJR Nabisco framework analysis to hold § 1595 has extraterritorial effect insofar as it incorporates predicate offenses that themselves apply abroad; it upheld admission of Doe’s testimony.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1595 applies extraterritorially to reach Linda’s 2007 conduct in Yemen	§ 1595 provides a remedy for victims of TVPA predicate offenses that apply abroad; Congress intended international reach	§ 1595 lacked clear extraterritorial language in 2007; later 2008 amendments cannot be applied retroactively to impose liability	Affirmed: § 1595 applies extraterritorially where it incorporates predicate offenses that themselves reach foreign conduct (RJR Nabisco analysis)
Whether § 1591, § 1589, § 1590 predicates covered Linda’s conduct	Predicates (esp. § 1591 and statutes applying to U.S. government employees abroad) reach conduct on U.S. embassy grounds and by U.S. nationals abroad	Linda argued predicates did not reach her 2007 extraterritorial acts	Affirmed: § 1591 covers conduct on U.S. diplomatic premises; § 1589/1590 reached her via § 3271 (2005) extending coverage to federal employees abroad; liability sustained on those predicates
Whether the jury’s reliance on § 1594 (conspiracy) — added in 2008 — requires reversal	Roe relied on multiple predicates; even without § 1594, compensatory damages were duplicative and would remain	Linda contended § 1594 was not in effect in 2007 so verdict flawed	Affirmed: any error on § 1594 is harmless because jury awarded duplicative damages and verdict would stand on other predicates
Whether Jane Doe’s testimony (about later abuse) was admissible	Doe’s testimony shows pattern, intent, knowledge, and Linda’s facilitation; admissible under 404(b) and 415; hearsay exception applies to statements against interest	Linda argued improper character evidence, unduly prejudicial (Rule 403), inadmissible hearsay	Affirmed: admission proper under Rule 404(b) (plan/knowledge), not unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403, and Russell’s statements admissible under Rule 804(b)(3)

Key Cases Cited

RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Cmty., 136 S. Ct. 2090 (Sup. Ct.) (two-step framework for extraterritoriality; incorporation of extraterritorial predicates can show clear intent)
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (Sup. Ct.) (presumption against extraterritoriality and relevance of whether claims “touch and concern” U.S.)
Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (Sup. Ct.) (focus test for domestic application of statute)
Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc., 758 F.3d 516 (4th Cir.) (extraterritoriality analysis under Kiobel applied in TVPA context)
United States v. Passaro, 577 F.3d 207 (4th Cir.) (U.S. embassies and housing fall within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction)
United States v. Ayesh, 702 F.3d 162 (4th Cir.) (Congress may apply statutes extraterritorially; statutory construction governs reach)