Al-Aulaqi v. Obama
2010 WL 4941958, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129601, 727 F. Supp. 2d 1 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lawsuit challenging the Executive Branch's authority to conduct a targeted killing of a U.S. citizen abroad who is an alleged operational leader of a terrorist organization presents a non-justiciable political question. A relative cannot establish 'next friend' or 'third-party' standing to bring such a claim where the citizen has not been rendered inaccessible to the courts by government action and has expressed disdain for the U.S. legal system.
Facts:
- Anwar Al-Aulaqi, a dual U.S.-Yemeni citizen, was living in Yemen.
- The U.S. Treasury Department designated Anwar Al-Aulaqi as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist due to his alleged operational role in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).
- Media reports, citing anonymous U.S. officials, stated that Anwar Al-Aulaqi had been placed on CIA and Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) 'kill lists.'
- Anwar Al-Aulaqi publicly called for 'jihad against the West,' praised terrorist acts, and expressed disdain for the U.S. legal system.
- While in hiding from U.S. authorities, Anwar Al-Aulaqi stated he would never surrender.
- Nasser Al-Aulaqi, Anwar's father, believed his son could not access legal counsel or the courts without disclosing his location and risking his life.
Procedural Posture:
- Nasser Al-Aulaqi filed suit against the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the CIA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the targeted killing of his son, Anwar Al-Aulaqi.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on five grounds: standing, the political question doctrine, equitable discretion, the Alien Tort Statute, and the state secrets privilege.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the Executive Branch from carrying out the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen abroad, filed by the citizen's father, justiciable in federal court?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Bates
No, the lawsuit is not justiciable. The court lacks jurisdiction because the plaintiff, Nasser Al-Aulaqi, lacks standing to sue on behalf of his son, and the case presents non-justiciable political questions. First, Nasser Al-Aulaqi fails to meet the requirements for 'next friend' standing because he cannot show his son is unable to access the courts; Anwar Al-Aulaqi's inaccessibility is a result of his own choice to hide from law enforcement, not government action. Furthermore, given Anwar's public condemnations of the U.S. legal system, his father cannot demonstrate that the lawsuit is in his son's best interests. Second, the plaintiff lacks 'third-party' standing because the potential death of an adult child does not constitute a legally protected interest sufficient to create an 'injury in fact' for the parent. Third, the case is barred by the political question doctrine because decisions about whom to target in military and intelligence operations abroad are constitutionally committed to the political branches (Congress and the Executive), and there are no judicially manageable standards for a court to assess such national security decisions. The judiciary is ill-equipped to evaluate military intelligence or determine whether an individual poses a sufficient threat to warrant the use of lethal force.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the judiciary's significant deference to the Executive Branch in matters of national security and foreign military operations, even when they involve the fundamental rights of a U.S. citizen. By dismissing the case on the threshold grounds of standing and the political question doctrine, the court effectively closed the door to pre-emptive judicial review of targeted killing policies. The ruling establishes a high bar for such challenges, suggesting that courts are unwilling to second-guess Executive determinations about who constitutes an enemy threat abroad. This case signals to future litigants that constitutional claims involving active military or intelligence targeting decisions are unlikely to be heard on the merits.
Unlock the full brief for Al-Aulaqi v. Obama