Suhail Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18995

Background

Four Iraqi nationals detained at Abu Ghraib in 2003–2004 alleged severe abuse (beatings, sexual assault, electric shocks, stress positions, deprivation) and sued CACI, a contractor that provided interrogation services.
Plaintiffs brought claims under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) for torture/war crimes and common-law torts; litigation spanned multiple appeals and remands addressing jurisdictional and substantive defenses.
Prior proceedings (including Al Shimari III) remanded to the district court to develop the record on whether the political question doctrine barred adjudication, focusing on the extent of military control over CACI interrogators.
The district court, after limited jurisdictional discovery, dismissed the case as presenting a nonjusticiable political question, relying on findings of formal military control and concerns about questioning military judgments and lacking manageable standards.
The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that (1) conduct unlawful when committed is justiciable regardless of military control; and (2) conduct that was lawful when committed may be nonjusticiable if it occurred under actual military control or implicated sensitive military judgments.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the political question doctrine bars suit against a contractor for interrogation-related conduct	Plaintiffs: a command vacuum meant military did not actually control CACI; thus claims are justiciable	CACI: military exercised direct control; adjudication would impinge on sensitive military judgments and lack manageable standards	Court: political-question bar applies only to conduct that (a) occurred under actual military control and (b) was lawful when committed; unlawful acts are justiciable regardless of control
Whether "direct control" exists such that contractor acts are de facto military decisions	Plaintiffs: actual control was lacking in practice, especially at night	CACI: formal IROEs and approved interrogation plans show control	Court: must assess actual (not merely formal) control in practice; formal directives alone insufficient
Whether adjudication would require questioning sensitive military judgments	Plaintiffs: claims challenge legality, not reasonableness, so courts can decide lawfulness	CACI: merits inquiry would second‑guess military strategy and tactics	Court: questioning sensitive military judgments can bar review for lawful conduct under military control, but not for conduct that was unlawful when committed
Whether courts have judicially manageable standards to resolve ATS/common-law claims	Plaintiffs: international and criminal statutes and precedents provide standards	CACI: international law and battlefield context make standards unmanageable	Court: manageable standards exist for settled prohibitions (e.g., torture, war crimes); difficulty alone does not make claims nonjusticiable

Key Cases Cited

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (establishes political question factors)
Taylor v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc., 658 F.3d 402 (4th Cir. 2011) (applies Baker to government‑contractor military cases; direct‑control and sensitive‑judgment framework)
Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc., 758 F.3d 516 (4th Cir. 2014) (remanded for factfinding on military control)
Burn Pit Litig. (In re KBR, Inc.), 744 F.3d 326 (4th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for 12(b)(1) and discussion of political‑question limits)
El‑Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. United States, 607 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (courts can adjudicate statutory and international‑law claims even when foreign affairs implications exist)
Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1995) (ATS suits can be adjudicated using international‑law norms)
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (controls extraterritorial reach of ATS)
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (recognizes judicial role protecting individual rights during wartime)