Mohammed Jawad was arrested in Kabul in December 2002 by Afghan security forces responding to the scene of a grenade attack on US military personnel. See Jawad v. Gates, No. 14-00811 (D.D.C. July 8, 2015) (D.D.C. Opinion). He was 14 or 15 at the time; Jawad doesn’t know his exact age but believes he was born in 1987. Afghan security forces abused, threatened, and coerced Jawad, “forcing him to sign a confession (written in a language that he could not read) with his thumbprint.” D.D.C. Opinion at 2.
Latest in Alien Tort Statute: Litigation
At a time of heightened concern over a new wave of terrorism financing
Last month, the ACLU filed a civil action in the Eastern District of Washington on behalf of Suleiman Abdullah Salim, Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud and Gul Rahman. They assert that the CIA secretly detained them in Afghanistan and subjected them to torture. Two of the plaintiffs, Suleiman Abdullah Salim and Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud, survived their time in CIA detention, were eventually released and now reside in Libya and Tanzania. The third plaintiff, Gul Rahman, died in CIA custody in November 2002.
Published by Oxford UP (Paperback 2015)
Reviewed by Kenneth Anderson
Judge Scheindlin Dismisses Remaining ATS Claims Against Ford and IBM in Long-running Apartheid Litigation
As Lawfare readers may have seen from press reports, on Thursday, SDNY Judge Shira Scheindlin dismissed the Alien Tort Statute suit against Ford Motor Company and IBM in connection with their business activities in Apartheid-era South Africa, thus ending the granddaddy of all ATS litigation and what may have been the largest, longest-running, and most expensive lawfare battle in history.
On August 19, Judge Boasberg of the DC District Court ruled that former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh enjoys immunity from suit for alleged human rights abuses of Sikhs in India while he was Prime Minister from 2004 to 2014, based on a Suggestion of Immunity submitted by the Executive branch.
Two New ATS Decisions: Fourth and Eleventh Circuits Split on Whether Claims Against CACI and Chiquita "Touch and Concern" the Territory of the United States
While Lawfare readers have been focused on other parts of the world, federal appellate courts have recently issued two significant, and potentially conflicting (in result, if not reasoning), decisions interpreting the extraterritorial reach of the Alien Tort Statute in light of the Supreme Court’s Kiobel decision. In June, a Fourth Circuit panel reversed the dismissal of an ATS claim brought against CACI, a U.S.
Apologies for Shameless Self-Promotion, but I wanted to mention an essay of mine that came out a couple of months ago as part of an excellent symposium on the work of Harvard Law School's comparative law scholar, my old and dear friend Mary Ann Glendon. (Duquesne Law Review, Vol. 52, Winter 2014, pp. 115-149, "Through Our Glass Darkly: Does Comparative Law Counsel the Use of Foreign Law in U.S.
Kiobel Anniversary Surprise: Judge Scheindlin Rules Corporations May Be Held Liable Under ATS, Despite Second Circuit Precedents
In a surprising decision issued on the first anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Kiobel, Judge Scheindlin held, in the long-running Apartheid litigation, that corporations may be sued under the Alien Tort Statute. Her decision directly conflicts not only with the Second Circuit’s original 2010 decision in Kiobel (holding that corporations are not subject to liability under the ATS) but also with the Second Circuit’s post-Kiobel