Embassy Bomb Victims Ask Supreme Court to Reinstate Punitive Damages

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Enacted of 1976 was enacted to protect foreign countries from being hauled into U.S. courts as defendants in actions for damages. However, the law was amended to allow plaintiffs to sue in cases of alleged terrorist activity. 

Last Monday, the attorney for the plaintiffs in case based on the allegation that Sudan supported a pair of embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, argued that the 2008 amendments to the statute also opened so-called state sponsors of terrorism up to the possibility of punitive damages.

Courthouse News has details here.

Court finds against Iran and awards $813 million to victims under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

A Washington federal judge has awarded $813 million to victims of the 1983 terrorist bombing at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, the latest in a string of large money judgments awarded against Iran for its role in the attack.  The case is called Brown v. Islamic Republic of Iran and the opinion is available here.  The claim was brought under the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which allows Americans to sue foreign states if it can be shown that the injury was caused by an act of terrorism sponsored by that foreign state.  The Blog of the Legal Times has more details here. This type of ruling is not unusual.  In fact, as the court states in its conclusion "Iran is racking up quite a bill from its sponsorship of terrorism. After this opinion, this Court will have issued over $8.8 billion in judgments against Iran as a result of the 1983 Beirut bombing."

Unfortunately, however, it is almost impossible for the victims to actually collect the money awarded. 

In one recent case on this issue called Estate of Heiser v Iran (DDC 2011), the court discusses how difficult it is for plaintiffs in cases like these to recover.  In that case, the plaintiffs went after Sprint to attempt to get Sprint to pay them money it owed to Iran's communications agency.  After discussing the issue in detail the court did order Sprint to give the funds to the plaintiffs, but then it concluded that

“...this decision represents renewed hope for long-suffering victims of state-sponsored terrorism. . . .But the bleak reality is that today’s decision comes after more than a year of litigation and results in a turnover of funds amounting to less than one-tenth of one-percent of what plaintiffs are entitled to in these consolidated cases.  And this infinitesimal sum is dwarfed by even greater magnitudes when compared to the endless agony and suffering befalling these victims.  A step in the right direction, to be sure.  But a very small one.”

District Court finds Syria and Iran liable under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

In an opinion  published Monday, a federal district court judge found that Syria and Iran were liable to pay $332 million under the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for their role in a 2006 suicide attack in Israel that killed eleven people.

This is not that unusual - there are other cases that have imposed such liability before.  But, unfortunately for the victims, the problem is that the judgements are usually impossible to collect.  For more on that interesting topic, you can read  Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 2011 WL 3489109 (D. D.C.  2011).

Judge Awards $77M in Back-to-Back Rulings Against Iran for 1983 Bombing

Last week, U.S. District Chief Judge Royce Lamberth issued a $44.6 million judgment against the Iranian government for its role in the 1983 terrorist bombings at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. The ruling came a week after Lamberth issued a $33.3 million judgment against Iran in a similar case.  Go here for more information and links to the decisions.

Arguments in Iraq v Beaty

A couple of days ago I posted a note about Iraq v Beaty, a case in which the Supreme Court will decide whether Federal Courts have jurisdiction over Iraq. The Court heard oral arguments Monday. Click here for a summary of the arguments. UPDATE: The Supreme Court issued its opinion on June 8, 2009 holding that federal courts do not have jurisdiction over Iraq. The opinion is available here.

Supreme Court hears case on whether federal courts have jurisdiction over Iraq

Foreign states cannot normally be sued in U.S. courts. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (”FSIA”), however, carves out several exceptions to this general rule, including one that permits lawsuits against state sponsors of terrorism “for personal injury or death that was caused by,” among other things, torture and hostage-taking. Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Republic of Iraq v. Beaty and Republic of Iraq v. Simon, two cases in which the Court must consider whether U.S. courts have jurisdiction over Iraq for claims involving hostage-taking and torture that occurred during Saddam Hussein’s regime. For a detailed description of the case and links to the briefs go here. Thanks to the TortsProf Blog for the citation.

Cases vs the Vatican

Here is a link to an article published today (online) by the National Law Journal on the recent cases against the Vatican related for damages caused by alleged sexual abuse by priests. If you can't access the article online, you can look for it in next week's print edition of the NLJ. Last December I posted that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals had decided the appeal on a case called O'Bryan v Holy See recognizing a claim against the Vatican for its conduct in handling allegations of sexual abuse by certain priests. The plaintiffs sued The Vatican as a foreign governmentt and as the head of an international religious organization arguing vicarious liabilty for the acts of certain bishops and priests. Because the Vatican is considered a foreign state, it challenged the jurisdiction of the court under the Foreign Sovereign Immnunity Act. The Court dismissed some of the claims but allowed others to continue. The Court dismissed the claims for the alleged conduct of The Vatican itself, because that conduct occured outside the United States and the claims based on vicarious liability because of the conduct of the alleged sex abuser because, under state law, a priest is not an employee of The Vatican. The Court, however, did recognize a claim against The Vatican for the conduct of the achbishops, bishops and other high ranking officials of the Church because they could be considered employees. Since then, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a similar decision in a case called Doe v Holy See. The Court’s decision in this case, however, is different in one very important respect. Applying Oregon law, it finds that the alleged abuser is an employee of The Vatican and, thus, it recognizes a possible claim against The Vatican itself for the conduct of the priest. After Doe was decided, the lawyers who represented the plaintiffs held a long press conference which can be found in YouTube in three parts here, here and here.

Sixth Circuit holds The Vatican can be sued for sexual abuse

In a landmark ruling yesterday, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the Vatican could be held liable for negligence in sexual-abuse cases filed in the U.S. It is the first time a circuit court reached that conclusion, and the opinion is considered a breakthrough by those allegedly abused by priests. The opinion is available here. Click here and here for reports from the Wall Street Journal. Originally posted by Sheila B. Scheuerman on TortsProf Blog.