Samantar v. Yousuf
2010 U.S. LEXIS 4378, 560 U.S. 305, 176 L. Ed. 2d 1047 (2010)
Rule of Law:
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) does not govern claims of immunity for individual foreign officials sued for actions taken in their official capacity. Such claims for immunity remain governed by pre-existing common law principles.
Facts:
- Mohamed Ali Samantar was the First Vice President, Minister of Defense, and later Prime Minister of Somalia between 1980 and 1990.
- Respondents, natives of Somalia and members of the Isaaq clan, allege that Samantar exercised command and control over Somali military forces who tortured, killed, or arbitrarily detained them or their family members during this period.
- The military regime in Somalia collapsed in 1991, and the United States has not recognized a government of Somalia since.
- Samantar fled Somalia in 1991 and became a resident of Virginia.
- The respondents allege that Samantar knew or should have known of the abuses perpetrated by his subordinates and that he aided and abetted their commission.
Procedural Posture:
- Respondents sued petitioner Mohamed Ali Samantar in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking damages under the Torture Victim Protection Act and the Alien Tort Statute.
- Samantar filed a motion to dismiss, claiming he was immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).
- The District Court stayed proceedings for two years to await a statement from the State Department, but none was provided.
- The District Court granted Samantar's motion to dismiss, holding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the FSIA extended immunity to him as an individual acting in his official capacity.
- Respondents, as appellants, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, holding that the FSIA does not apply to individual foreign government officials.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) provide immunity from suit to an individual foreign official for acts taken in his official capacity?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) does not govern an individual foreign official's claim to immunity from suit. The Court's reasoning is based on a textual analysis of the FSIA. The Act's definition of a 'foreign state' in §1603 includes political subdivisions and an 'agency or instrumentality,' but the specific definition of 'agency or instrumentality' uses terms like 'entity,' 'separate legal person, corporate or otherwise,' and citizenship requirements that apply awkwardly, if at all, to natural persons. Furthermore, other sections of the FSIA, such as §1605(a)(5), explicitly distinguish between a 'foreign state' and its 'official or employee,' which would be redundant if 'foreign state' already included officials. The FSIA's history and purpose show it was designed to codify the 'restrictive theory' of sovereign immunity for states and their enterprises, not to displace the separate common-law framework for individual official immunity.
Concurring - Justice Alito
Yes, but only based on the Court's textual analysis. The majority's citations to legislative history are of little if any value in resolving the case.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
Yes, but only based on the Court's textual analysis. Justice Thomas joined the Court's opinion except for the parts relying on the legislative history of the FSIA, viewing the textual analysis as sufficient to resolve the case.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
Yes, but the Court's judgment should be based solely on the text of the statute. The Court’s textual analysis correctly demonstrates that the FSIA does not cover foreign officials. However, the majority's inclusion of legislative history is superfluous, serves no purpose, and injects a mode of analysis that is not valid. The legislative history cited by the majority is either ambiguous, duplicative of the statutory text, or potentially contradictory to the Court's conclusion.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the FSIA, establishing a clear line between the immunity of a foreign state and the immunity of its individual officials. By holding that the FSIA does not apply to individuals, the Court prevents foreign officials from using the statute as a shield against lawsuits for human rights abuses and other torts. The ruling remits the question of official immunity to the common law, reviving the State Department's role in making 'suggestions of immunity' in such cases and creating a dual-track system where suits against states are governed by the FSIA and suits against officials are governed by common law.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Samantar v. Yousuf (2010)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"