In L-3 Services, Inc., v. Al-Quraishi, Plaintiffs allege that a U.S. military contractor, L-3 Services (formerly Titan, Corp.), and one of its employees tortured and otherwise abused Plaintiffs, who were detained in military prisons in Iraq. A federal district court in Maryland held that the Plaintiffs’ claims could proceed. L-3 appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on a number of different grounds.
On September 28, ERI submitted an amicus brief to the Fourth Circuit, supporting the detainees’ claims. ERI’s brief addresses a key issue that is important for the future of transnational litigation as a vehicle for obtaining justice for victims of human rights abuses. The brief argues that claims brought by the victims under state law should not be dismissed due to supposed interference with U.S. foreign policy. (ERI submitted similar briefs on this issue in Doe v. ExxonMobil, Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum, von Saher v. Norton Simon Art Museum, and Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung.) Most of the victims’ claims are ordinary tort claims – like assault and battery – and there is no barrier for a court to hear a case alleging such claims, whether the abuses occurred in the United States, or in Iraq. Ordinary tort claims typically do not implicate serious foreign policy concerns.
Last year, in Saleh v. Titan Corp., 580 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed similar claims against the same defendant, finding in part that ordinary state law tort claims would interfere with U.S. foreign policy prerogatives. L-3’s argument in Al-Quraishi was based on Saleh; ERI’s brief argued that the D.C. Circuit was mistaken and that the dissent in Saleh was correct in concluding that existing foreign affairs doctrines do not permit dismissal of the claims. The Plaintiffs in Saleh have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, and ERI is watching it closely.
