Alien Tort Statute ('Ats'), Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act ('Tvpra')

• Pages: 3-6

3

international law update Volume 23, January–March 2017

© 2017 International Law Group, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com

law. In Siderman de Blake, we held that Congress

could grant a foreign government immunity from

suit for alleged violations of the jus cogens norm

against torture. Id. at 718-19. After recognizing

that immunity might not be available as a matter of

customary international law, we noted that we were

dealing “not only with customary international law,

but with an af‌f‌irmative Act of Congress“—in that

case, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Id. at

718.”

“Siderman de Blake dealt with foreign sovereign

immunity, whereas this case concerns the of‌f‌icial

immunity of domestic of‌f‌icers. But, if anything,

that dif‌ference cuts against Plaintif‌f. e immunity

of foreign of‌f‌icials in our courts f‌lows from dif‌ferent

considerations than does the immunity of domestic

of‌f‌icials. Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d

202, 207 n.5 (D.C. Cir. 1985); accord Universal

Consol. Cos. v. Bank of China, 35 F.3d 243, 245

(6th Cir. 1994).”

“When the Westfall Act was passed, it was

clear that this immunity covered even heinous acts.

See, e.g., Hoston v. Silbert, 681 F.2d 876, 877-80

(D.C. Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (holding that United

States Marshals were acting in the scope of their

employment when they allegedly beat an unarmed,

shackled prisoner and left him to die in a holding

cell).”

“In short, the treaties and charters cited

by Plaintif‌f do not alter our conclusion that

the Westfall Act, by its plain terms, immunizes

Defendants from suit.”

citation: Saleh v. Bush, 848 F. 3d 880—Court of

Appeals, 9th Circuit 2017.

ALIEN TORT STATUTE

(“ATS”), TRAFFICKING

VICTIMS PROTECTION

REAUTHORIZATION

ACT (“TVPRA”)

Fifth Circuit upheld judgment of united

states district court for the southern

district of Texas. Fifth circuit held that

the district court’s grant of summary

judgment on the ATS and TVPRA claims

in favor of defendant was proper and

that the district court did not abuse

its discretion in dismissing the common

law claims by refusing to equitably toll

plaintiffs’ state law tort claims

In 2004, an Iraqi insurgent group kidnapped

and murdered twelve Nepali men as they traveled

through Iraq to a United States military base to

work for Daoud & Partners (“Daoud”), a Jordanian

corporation that had a subcontract with Defendant-

Appellee Kellogg Brown Root (“KBR”). In 2008,

Plaintif‌fs f‌iled suit against KBR and Daoud. ey

asserted claims under the TVPRA and the ATS,

and also brought common law negligence claims.

In November 2009, the district court granted

KBR’s motion to dismiss Plaintif‌fs’ common law

negligence claims. KBR moved for interlocutory

review of the district court’s TVPRA ruling under

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). In response, the district court

reconsidered its denial of summary judgment sua

sponte on the TVPRA claim. e court reversed its

previous decisions and held that the TVPRA like

the ATS did not apply extraterritorially at the time

of the alleged conduct in 2004.

Plaintif‌fs responded by f‌iling motions for

rehearing on the district court’s TVPRA and ATS

rulings and for leave to amend their ATS claims.

In March 2015, the district court denied these

motions. e appeal followed. *191

Plaintif‌fs contended that KBR’s alleged

involvement in the traf‌f‌icking of the Deceased and