Preemption

• Author: International Law Group, PLLC
• Pages: 141-142

Page 141

Iraqi Plaintiffs brought lawsuits a federal district court against Titan Corporation and CACI International, Inc.(Defendants) which were "private "American military contractors that provided guard services at the Abu Ghraib military prison, The court consolidate these lawsuits. Defendants provided interrogation services to the U.S. military in Iraq. The contractors served along with military personnel, but the latter retained control over the interrogations.

The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants abused detainees at Abu Ghraib, and thereby violated the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and District of Columbia tort law. The district court gave summary judgment to Titan on the local tort claims because federal law had preempted them. The district court, however, denied CACI's summary judgment motion. This appeal ensued. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirms as to Titan, but reverses as to CACI.

The U.S. has prosecuted members of the American forces for their alleged abuses at Abu Ghraib, but decided not to bring charges against civilian contractors. The U.S. Army Claims Service, however, has announced that it will compensate detainees with legitimate claims under the Foreign Claims Act, 10 U.S.C. § 2734.

The district court dismissed all claims with the exception of certain tort and negligence claims. The district court found that the remaining claims against Titan were preempted because they were claims against "contractors providing services to the military in a combat context." The District Court judge developed a test whereby preemption attaches only when contract employees are "under the direct command and exclusive operational control of the military chain of command. [Cite]."

"The district court found that Titan's personnel were "fully integrated into [their] military units" and were "soldiers in all but name." However, the district court denied summary judgment to CACI finding evidence of "dual oversight" because its employees were expected to report abuses to company superiors and the CACI site manager had authority to prohibit interrogations inconsistent with the company ethics policy. In a 2 to 1 vote, the Circuit Court agrees with the District Court's focus on the degree of integration, but rejects the district court's addition of exclusive operational control." [Slip Op. 6-7] .

The Appellate Court first turns to whether...