Weinstock v. Republic of the Sudan
Civil Action No. 2020-3021
D.D.C.Mar 20, 2025Background
- In 1993, Yitzach Weinstock, a U.S. citizen, was killed in a Hamas terrorist attack in Jerusalem. His estate and family filed suit against Sudan for damages under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).
- Shortly after the suit was filed in 2020, the U.S. entered into a Claims Settlement Agreement with Sudan, espousing (taking over) such U.S. nationals' claims and exchanging them for a $335 million payment, to compensate victims covered by certain private settlements.
- Congress enacted the Sudan Claims Resolution Act, restoring Sudan's sovereign immunity and stripping U.S. courts of jurisdiction over most terrorism claims against Sudan, except for those arising from the September 11 attacks.
- Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding the United States and relevant officials as defendants, asserting the Agreement and Act are unconstitutional.
- The federal defendants moved to dismiss the constitutional claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of Agreement & Act (Equal Protection) | Discriminates against Weinstock family by treating them differently than similarly situated victims; the distinction is arbitrary and pretextual | The Act and Agreement have rational bases, including fostering US-Sudan relations and prioritizing government victim claims | Court applies rational basis review; finds multiple rational bases exist; dismisses claim |
| Constitutionality of Act (Due Process/Separation of Powers) | The Act denies a judicial forum for colorable constitutional claims; infringes on due process and separation of powers | The Act only removes jurisdiction over claims against Sudan, not against US defendants | No due process or separation of powers violation; court can and does hear constitutional claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (sets pleading standards for Rule 12(b)(6) motions; plausibility requirement)
- Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- FCC v. Beach Commc'ns, 508 U.S. 307 (1993) (rational basis review for statutory classifications)
- Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981) (upholding executive power to settle US national claims against foreign countries)