Vance v. Rumsfeld
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16338
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Vance and Ertel, American civilians, allegedly were detained in Iraq in 2006 and tortured by U.S. military personnel.
- They were never charged with crimes and were released after detention.
- Plaintiffs sued Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and unknown defendants under Bivens for torture and related due‑process claims, and sued the United States under the APA to recover seized personal property.
- The district court allowed Bivens torture claims to proceed and denied the property claim; the government appealed under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and § 1292(b).
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the property claim but held that Bivens claims against Rumsfeld could proceed and that a Bivens remedy is available for U.S. citizens in a war zone.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs adequately pled Secretary Rumsfeld's personal liability. | Vance and Ertel pled Rumsfeld personally authorized policies causing torture. | Rumsfeld cannot be personally liable based on pleadings and immunity rules. | Yes; plaintiffs plausibly alleged personal responsibility. |
| Whether Secretary Rumsfeld is entitled to qualified immunity on pleadings. | Rights were clearly established; deliberate torture violates constitutional rights. | Qualified immunity should shield officials unless rights are clearly established. | No; 2006 law clearly established unconstitutionality. |
| Whether a Bivens remedy may be recognized for civilian U.S. citizens tortured in a war zone. | Citizens should have a damages remedy for official torture abroad. | Courts should refrain from creating Bivens remedies in wartime abroad. | Yes; Bivens remedy recognized for civilians torturing by federal officials abroad in a war zone. |
| Whether the Army‑Field Manual/DoD policy context forecloses the personal‑property claim under the APA. | Property seizure could be reviewed; military authority exception does not bar it. | APA military‑authority exception precludes review of property seizure in war. | Precludes review; military authority exception applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (U.S. 1980) (emphasizes Bivens availability in prison context for federal officials' conduct)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (established framework for evaluating qualified immunity; later overruled in part but cited for standard)
- Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (U.S. 2007) (two-step Bivens approach; special factors caution against new remedies)
- Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1983) (illustrates remedial judgments appropriate for common-law tribunals; step two guidance)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (deliberate indifference standard for official liability)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (Eighth Amendment standard; informs due process critique in detention context)
- Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1957) (government's reach abroad still bound by Constitution; rights abroad)
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (U.S. 2008) (habeas rights and foreigners' rights abroad; implications for review outside borders)
- Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (U.S. 2008) (habeas rights extending to citizens overseas under military custody)
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (U.S. 2004) (detainee rights in wartime; judicial review role)