Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain
542 U.S. 692 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Federal Tort Claims Act's (FTCA) foreign country exception bars all claims based on injuries occurring abroad, regardless of where the planning took place. The Alien Tort Statute (ATS) is a jurisdictional statute that provides a cause of action for only a narrow set of torts that violate norms of international law that are as specific, universal, and obligatory as the 18th-century paradigms of piracy, infringement of ambassadorial rights, and violation of safe conducts.
Facts:
- In 1985, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent Enrique Camarena-Salazar was captured, tortured, and murdered in Mexico.
- DEA officials in the United States concluded that Humberto Alvarez-Machain, a Mexican physician, participated in the torture by acting to prolong the agent's life.
- After requests for assistance from the Mexican government proved fruitless, DEA officials in California developed and approved a plan to hire Mexican nationals to seize Alvarez in Mexico.
- A group of Mexican nationals, including Jose Francisco Sosa, abducted Alvarez from his house in Guadalajara, Mexico.
- The group held Alvarez overnight in a motel.
- Sosa and his associates then transported Alvarez by private plane to El Paso, Texas.
- Upon arrival in El Paso, Alvarez was arrested by federal DEA officers.
Procedural Posture:
- Humberto Alvarez-Machain sued Jose Francisco Sosa, the United States, and DEA agents in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, asserting claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).
- The District Court dismissed the FTCA claim against the United States but granted summary judgment to Alvarez on his ATS claim against Sosa, awarding $25,000 in damages.
- On appeal, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the ATS judgment and reversed the dismissal of the FTCA claim.
- The Ninth Circuit then reheard the case en banc, again affirming the ATS judgment and holding that the 'headquarters doctrine' allowed the FTCA claim against the United States to proceed.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's decision.
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 the United States liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for an abduction planned domestically but executed in a foreign country, and does the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) provide a cause of action for a brief, arbitrary detention?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Souter
No. The United States is not liable under the FTCA because the claim arises in a foreign country, and the ATS does not provide a cause of action for a brief, arbitrary detention that does not violate a well-defined international law norm. The FTCA's foreign country exception, which bars claims 'arising in a foreign country,' precludes liability for injuries that occur in a foreign territory, regardless of where the planning or direction for the injurious act occurred. The Court rejects the 'headquarters doctrine,' finding that Congress intended the exception to prevent the U.S. from being subjected to liability based on foreign law, a result that would occur under traditional choice-of-law principles when the injury is sustained abroad. For the ATS claim, the statute is jurisdictional and does not create new causes of action. It was enacted on the understanding that federal courts would recognize the few common law torts that violated well-established 18th-century law of nations, such as piracy. For a modern claim to be actionable, it must rest on a norm of international law that is no less definite in its content and acceptance among civilized nations than those historical paradigms. A single, brief, unauthorized detention does not meet this high threshold, as it is not a violation of a specific, universal, and obligatory norm of customary international law.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
No. While concurring in the judgment and the Court's FTCA analysis, a different analysis is required for the ATS. The ATS is purely jurisdictional, and the majority is wrong to suggest that federal courts retain any discretionary power to create new common law causes of action based on international norms. The 18th-century understanding that courts could enforce the 'law of nations' was based on the concept of a general common law that was 'discovered,' a concept repudiated by Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins. Post-Erie, federal common law is 'made,' not 'discovered,' and requires specific authorization that a jurisdictional statute like the ATS does not provide. The majority's 'door is ajar' approach invites judicial usurpation of the legislative power to create causes of action, a function that belongs to Congress, especially in matters affecting foreign relations.
Concurring - Justice Ginsburg
No. While concurring in the judgment and the ATS analysis, the FTCA claim is barred for a simpler reason. The foreign country exception in § 2680(k) ('arising in a foreign country') should be read in harmony with the FTCA's main jurisdictional grant in § 1346(b), which looks to 'the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.' Thus, the foreign country exception applies when the tortious act itself occurs abroad. Here, the tortious act was the false arrest, which occurred in Mexico, not the planning in California. This approach avoids the majority's complex choice-of-law analysis and properly bars the claim without reference to outdated legal doctrines.
Concurring - Justice Breyer
No. Concurring with the judgment and joining Justice Ginsburg's concurrence and the majority's ATS opinion, an additional factor should be considered for ATS claims: comity. Courts should ask whether there is a procedural consensus in international law for universal jurisdiction over the specific norm violation alleged. While such a consensus exists for universal criminal jurisdiction over heinous crimes like genocide and torture, it does not exist for a claim of arbitrary detention as presented here. The lack of procedural consensus on jurisdiction provides further reason to conclude that the ATS does not recognize Alvarez's claim.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reined in two major avenues for human rights and tort litigation against U.S. and foreign actors in federal court. By rejecting the FTCA's 'headquarters doctrine,' the Court shielded the U.S. government from liability for overseas operations planned domestically, reinforcing sovereign immunity in the context of foreign affairs. For the ATS, the Court established a demanding standard for recognizing claims, clarifying that the statute is jurisdictional but leaving the door slightly 'ajar' for common law claims based on customary international law. This high bar—requiring norms to be as specific and universally accepted as 18th-century analogs like piracy—dramatically curtailed the expansive use of the ATS for modern human rights litigation that had developed since the 1980 Filartiga decision.
