Suhail Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc.
758 F.3d 516
4th Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiffs (foreign nationals detained at Abu Ghraib) allege torture and other abuses by U.S. citizen contractors employed by CACI while detained in Iraq.
- CACI is a U.S. corporation headquartered in Virginia; the interrogation contract was awarded to CACI by the U.S. Department of the Interior and required DoD security clearances.
- Plaintiffs sued in federal court under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and asserted common-law tort claims; discovery was limited.
- The district court dismissed the ATS claims after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kiobel, concluding the ATS lacks extraterritorial reach, and dismissed remaining common-law claims on other grounds.
- The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded: it held Kiobel’s presumption-against-extraterritoriality does not categorically bar ATS claims with strong U.S. ties, but remanded for factual development on political-question (justiciability) issues under Taylor v. KBR.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ATS provides jurisdiction for alleged international-law violations arising from torture at Abu Ghraib | ATS applies because the claims "touch and concern" the U.S.: U.S. corporate defendant, U.S. employees, U.S. contract, U.S.-based management alleged to have approved/covered-up abuse | Kiobel bars ATS jurisdiction for claims based on conduct abroad; the extraterritorial presumption defeats jurisdiction here | ATS jurisdiction may exist: Kiobel’s "touch and concern" test requires a fact-based inquiry; the court held plaintiffs’ allegations (U.S. corporation, U.S. employees, U.S. contract/management, congressional intent) sufficiently allege contacts to displace the presumption — district court’s Kiobel-based dismissal vacated |
| Whether the political question doctrine bars adjudication of ATS and common-law claims | Claims are justiciable; they challenge private contractors’ conduct and do not require questioning high-level military or foreign-policy decisions | Litigation would intrude on military/foreign-policy prerogatives; contractors were under military control and adjudication would question sensitive military judgments | Remanded for factual development: court could not resolve political-question defense on current record and instructed district court to apply the Taylor two-factor test (direct military control; whether adjudication would question sensitive military judgments) with additional discovery as needed |
| Whether mere corporate presence in U.S. suffices under Kiobel | Plaintiffs: presence plus contracts, U.S. employees and managerial actions do more than mere presence | Defendants: Kiobel forecloses ATS when tort occurred abroad regardless of corporate ties | Court: Kiobel does not categorically bar such claims; "mere presence" is insufficient but substantial U.S. conduct may displace the presumption |
| Whether appellate review was proper of earlier interlocutory rulings | Plaintiffs: earlier decisions required remand and further proceedings | Defendants: appealed interlocutory rulings previously; jurisdictional issues complicated appealability | Court noted prior en banc dismissal of interlocutory appeal and proceeded to decide ATS and remand for further fact development; vacated district court judgment and costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013) (establishes presumption against extraterritorial application of ATS and directs a "touch and concern" factual inquiry)
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) (ATS is jurisdictional and permits claims for definite, universal international-law norms)
- Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010) (explains the presumption against extraterritoriality and its application)
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (sets the political-question factors for justiciability)
- Taylor v. Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., 658 F.3d 402 (4th Cir. 2011) (adapts Baker for government-contractor cases: two-factor test — direct military control and whether adjudication would question sensitive military judgments)