## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 D ONAL D V ANCE an d N AT HAN E RT EL, P la intif fs-A pp ellees , v.
D ONAL D R UMS FE LD an d THE U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, D efend a nts-A pp ella nts.

Appeals from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 06 C6964

—Wayn e R. Andersen, Judge .
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 10, 2011

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 8, 2011

Befo re M A NI ON, E VANS, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. H A MI L T ON , C ircu it Judge. Thi s a pp ealr ai ses fund am en ta l que st i o ns abo utthe r el at i o nshi p b etwee n the citizens of our cou nt ry and their governm en t. Plaintiff s Don al d Van ce an d N atha n Er te l ar e Am er ican ci ti ze ns an d c i v i l i a ns . Th e i r c o mpl a i nt a l l e g e s i n de t a i l tha t t hey w ere d etaine d and i ll egally tortu red by U
. S. m ilit a ry2 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 perso nnel i n I ra q i n 200 6. P lai nti ff s were re l eas ed fro m m i l i tar y c ustody w i thout eve r bei ng char ge d w i th a cr i m e. They then fi l ed thi s s uitf orvi ol ati ons of thei r const i tuti onalr i ghts against for m erS ecr eta ryo f Defe nse Donal d Rum sfel d and otherunknown defendants un d er Bive ns v. Six Unknown Nam e d Age nts of Fe de r al B ure au of Narcoti cs , 403 U .S
. 38 8 ( 1971 )
. Pl ai nti ff s s eek dam age s fro m Se cre tar y Rum sfel d a nd othe rs f or th eir ro l es i n cr eat i ng and c ar ryi ng o ut pol i ci es that caused p l a in tiffs ’ alle ge d to rt u re . Pla in tiffs als o b rin g a cla im again st the Unite d Sta tes under the A dm i ni str ati ve Pro
cedure A ct t o re cove r p er sonal pro pertythatwas sei zed whe n the y we r e de t a i ne d. Sec re tary Rum sfel d and the U ni ted S tat es m ove d to dism i ss the c l ai m s agai nst them
. T he d i str i ct c ourtdeni ed i n pa r t S ec r et ar y Rumsfel d’ s m o ti o n t o di smi ss , a l l o wi ng pl aint i ff s to pr o ce ed wi th B iven s cl ai m s f o r t o r tu r e an d cruel, i nhum an, and degr adingtr eat m ent, wh i ch have be enpr es en te d a s F i fthAm en dm en t su bs ta nt i ve due p ro c es s c laim s. Va nce v. R um sf el d, 694 F. Supp. 2d 95 7 ( N .D
. I l l
. 20 10)
. The di str i ct c ourtal so denie d the g ove r n me n t ’ s mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s th e p l a i n t i ff s ’ p r o p e r t y c l a i m. Va nce v. R um sf

el d, 20 09 W L 22522 58 ( N
. D. I l l
. 20 09)
. S ecr et a r y Rum s fe l d a nd the Uni t e d S t a t e s h a v e a pp e a l e d, and w e co nsi der thei r appeal s pu rs uant to 28 U
. S. C. § 1 291 an d 28 U
. S. C
. § 1292(b). W e a gr ee w i th the di str i ct c ou rt thatthe pla i nti ff s m ay p roceed w ith th eir Bive ns clai m s against Secretary Rum sfel d. Ta k i ngthe i ss ue s i n a sc en di ngo r dero fb r ea dth, w e a gr ee first, ap p lyin g t h e s ta n d ar d s o f Fe d er al R u leN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 3 of C ivil P ro c ed u re 1 2 ( b )(6) , th at p lain tiffs h av e a lleg ed in su ffici en t d etail facts su p p orting Secreta ry Ru m s fe ld’s p e r s o n a l r e s p o n s ib i l i t y f o r th e a l l e g e d t o r t u r e . S e c o n d , we agr ee w i th the d i str i ct courtthat Secr eta ryRum sfel d i s no t en ti tl ed to qua l i fied imm uni tyo n the pl ea di ng s. The l aw was c l ea r l y e st ab li sh ed i n 2 00 6 th atthe t r ea tment pla in tiff s hav e a l l ege d w as unconsti tuti onal
. N o re asonab l e publ i c o ffi ci alco uld have bel i eve d other w i se. N ext, we agr ee w ith t h e di str i ct c ourtthata Bive ns rem ed y i s available for the alleg e d torture of civi li an U
. S. ci ti zens by U
. S. m ilita ry per sonneli n a war z one. W e s ee no persuas i ve j usti fi cati on i n the B iven s case law or oth erw i se f ordefendants’ m ostsweepingar gum ent, wh i ch w oul d dep ri ve ci vi l i an U
. S. citize n s ofa ci vi l j ud i ci al re m edy f orto rture orev en co l d-blo od ed m urder by federa l o ffi ci al s a nd so l die rs , atany l eve l, i n a war z one. U ni ted S tat es l aw prov id es a ci vi l dam age s r em edy f or al i ens who ar e t or ture d by thei r own go ver nm ents. I twoul d b e s t a r t l i nga nd u np r e c e de nt e d t o c o nc l ud e tha tthe Uni t e d S t a t e s wo ul d n o tp r o v i de s uc h a r e med y to i ts own ci ti zens. The de fen dan ts r ely o n t wo ci rcu itde ci si o ns de ny i ng B iven s rem ed ies to al ien d etaine es all eging th at U
. S. o ffi ci al s ca us ed th em t o b e to r tu r ed, o ne c as e ar i sing fro m w ar zo n es , A liv. Rum sf el d, ___F
. 3 d
___, 2 0 1 1 WL 24 62 85 1 (D. C. Ci r . J une 2 1, 2 01 1) ( det aine es i n I r aqa nd A fghan istan), an d the oth er a s p art of th e w ar on terror, A rar v. A shcroft, 5 8 5 F
. 3 d 5 5 9 ( 2 d Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( en banc) ( “e xtr ao r di na r y r en di ti o n” c as e)
. Tho se c l ai m s bya l i en s ar e r ea di l y di st i ng ui sh ab l e from thi s ca se b as ed o n the d iffer en t c irc u m st an c es of alie n s a n d civ ilian U .S. citi-4 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442

The am i c us br i effi l ed by f or m erSe c re t ar i es ofDefen s e and 1 f or m erM em ber s ofthe J oi ntChi ef s ofSt affi n s up por tof Se c re t ar y Rum s fel d and the gove rn m en t poi nt s out thatthe U nit ed S tat es te chnic all y op erat ed in I raq throug h 2008 as part ofthe M u ltinati onal Force

— I r a q( “ MN F
- I ” )
. We a s s u me thatthe f or c es ho l di ng Vanc e and E rt elwer e underthe aut hor i t y o fth e Un i t e d S t a t e s . L i k e th e a mi c i , we r e fe r t o t he (co n tin u ed ...) ze ns . W he th ero r no t o ne a g r ee s wi ththo se d ecisio ns , the d iffi cul t i ssues pose d by a l i ens’ cl ai m s s houl d not l ead co urts to exte nd the re aso ni ng i n thos e ca ses to den y a l l c i vi l r emedi es t o c i vi l i anU. S. ci ti ze ns who have been tor ture d by thei r own go ver nm ent, i n vi ol ati o n o fth e m o stfunda m en ta l g ua r an te es i n the c o ns ti tu
ti onalpact between ci ti zens and our gov er nm ent. A s t o the m odest proper ty cl ai m a gainst the U ni ted S ta te s, ho wev er, we ag r ee w ith the g o ve r nm en t th atthe A dm i ni str ative Pr oce du re A ct’ s “ m i l i tar y a uthor i ty” ex ce pti o n pr ec l ude s j udi ci alr ev i ew o fmil i ta r y act i o ns a ffe c t i n gp e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y i n a warz o n e , a n d we r e v e r s e th e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n o n th a tc l a i m.
I. Fac t ual an d Pr oc e dural Backg r oun d A
. Fac t ual Al l egat i ons Pl ai nti ffs Donal d Vance and N athan Ert elhave al l ege d sobering clai m s th a t t he y w ere tortu red by U
. S. m il itary p e r s o n n e l w h i l e th e y wer e d e t a i n e d i n d e fi n i t e l y a tC a mp Cr o pper, a U. S
. m i l i ta r y pr i so n in I r aqi n 2 00 6, dur i ngthe o ng o i ng I r aq W ar . Bec au se th i s ca se co m es be f o r e us 1N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 5

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 f or c es who det ai ne d the pl ai nt i ff s as the “U. S. m i l i t ar y, ” n ot th e “ M N F -I.” Al l r e fe r e nc e s t o the Co m pl a i ntare t o the o pe r a t i ve 2 p le a d in g , th e S ec o n d A m en d ed C o m p la in t. fr o m the de ni alo fa mot i o n t o di smi ss , we as su m e th e truth o fa l l wel l

- pl ed al l eg at i o ns i n the c o m pl aint, v i ewing th o se a l l eg at i o ns i n the l i gh t m ostf av o r ab l e to the pl ainti ff s. S ee M usca rello v . O gle C o un ty B d. o f C o m m ’rs , 61 0 F.3 d 416, 42 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) , ci ti ng Ash crof tv. Iq b al , 1 29 S. Ct. 1 937, 19 49 ( 2009 )
. W e do not vouch f orthe tr uth of th e all egation s. B y se eking d ism issal un d er Ru le 12(b) (6), ho wev er, the de fend ants ha ve a sk ed us t o de ci de th e i ss ue s ba se d o n the a ss um pti o n tha t th e all egati o ns ar e t rue. W e pr oce ed on that ba si s. W e c an on ly su m m ar ize h er e t h e k ey alleg at ion s in the det ai l ed Com p lain t, w i th i ts 79 pages and 387 paragr aphs, c iting the per ti nent par agr aph num ber s. Vance 2 an d E rt el, tw o yo u n g A m er ica n c ivilia n s, in d ep en d en tly m oved from their ho m es in I ll inois and Virginia to w ork i n I ra q to hel p “rebui l d the co untry and achi eve dem ocra cy” f ol l owing the beg in n i ng o fthe curr ent c onfl i ct th er e. S ee ¶ ¶ 3, 2 8. In 2 00 5 an d 2 00 6, b ef o r e th ei r de te nti on, th e tw o A m er i cans work ed f ora pri vate l y- own ed I ra qi se curi ty ser vi ces com pany, S hi el d G ro up S ecuri ty, in the “Re d Z o n e ” i n Iraq, th e area out side the sec ure “Gree n Zone” in Baghdad
. ¶¶ 3 3- 39. O ver t i m e, Vance becam e s uspici ous that the co m p an y w as i nvol ved w i th co rr up ti on a nd o th er i l l ega l act i vi ty. ¶¶ 1 8, 42
. H e no ti ced, for exam ple , thatS hi el d G ro up S ecuri ty6 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 offi ci al s were m aking paym ents to I ra qi shei khs, wh i ch h e b elieved w as done to o btain i nfl uence. ¶¶ 4 1- 42. W h ile V an c e w as h om e in C h ica go for h is fa th er ’s fu n er al, h e c on ta c te d U .S. gov er n m en t o fficia ls t o re p o rth is su spi cions. ¶ 4 3. He metwi tha n F BIa g en t, who ar r an g ed for Va nc e to c o nt i nue r epo r tings us pi ci o us acti vi ty back to Ch i cago . The FBI age nt al so req ueste d that Vance m eetU
. S. go ver nm ent o ffi ci al s in I ra q to re p or t his ob se rv at ion s. ¶ ¶ 44 -47, 49
. V an c e tol d h is fri en d and coll eagu e E rtel that h e h a d b e c om e an inform ant, and Erte l co ntributed i nfo rm ati on a s wel l
. ¶¶ 4 8- 49. The pla i nti ff s were fre quentl y in to uch w i th the i r gov er nm ent c ontac ts, so m eti m es m ult i ple ti m es a day. ¶ 4 5. A t t he re que sto fa U. S
. g o ve r nm en t o ffi ci ali n I r aq, Vance co pie d and share d Shi el d G ro up S ecuri ty docum ents w i th U
. S. o ffi ci al s. ¶ 47 . V ance a nd Erte l re p or te d th eir in-d ep th ob se rv at ion s o f ind ivid u a ls cl o se l y a ss o ci at ed wi thS hi el d Gr o up Sec ur i ty, i nc l udi ng U
. S. and Iraqigo ver nm ent o ffi ci al s who w er e invol ved w i th i l l ega l ar m s t ra ding, st ock pil i ng o fweapons, briber y, and other suspi ci ous a cti vi ty and rel ati ons h ips. ¶¶ 4 5- 10 4. The i r whi st l eb l o wi ng a l l eg edl y i nc l ude d the s h a r i n go fs e n s i t i v e i n f o r ma t i o n wi th th e U. S
. g o v er nm e n t, i n c l u d i n g r e p o r t s th a t th e i r s u p e r v i s o r, who cal l ed hi m sel fthe “Dir ecto r” o fthe “Be er fo r Bu l l ets ” p ro gr am , tr aded l i quor to A m er ica n so ld ier s in ex change f orU
. S. weapons and am m unit i on that Sh ield Group Sec uri ty then use d orso l d fo r a pro fi t. ¶ 9 5. S hi el d Gr o up S ec ur i tyoffi ci al s be ca m e su spi ci o us about the pl ai nti ff s’ l oya l ty to the fi rm . On Ap ri l 14, 20 06, th ey con fi scat ed the cred en tials th at all ow ed plaintiff sN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 7
acces s t o the Gre en Zone, effecti vel y t ra pp i ng the m i nsi de the fi rm ’ s com pound i n the Red Zone. ¶¶ 107- 12, 116- 19. Pl ai n ti ff s ca l l ed thei r U
. S. go ver nm ent c ontac ts inIraqfor h elp . Th ey w er e t o ld th at th ey sh ou ld i nter pret Shi el d G ro up S ecuri ty’ s a cti ons as tak i ng the m ho st ag e, a nd s ho ul d b ar r i ca de the m se l ve s wi thwea po ns in a room of th e c om p ou nd
. ¶¶ 120 , 124-25. T he y w ere ass ured that U
. S. f or ces w oul d c om e to re scue them
. ¶ 1 24. U
. S. force s ca m e t o the c om pound and to ok Vance and Ert el t o the U. S. Em bass y forquesti oni ng. ¶¶ 1 25- 31. M i l i tar y per sonnelse ize d allo fthei r perso nal pro perty, i ncl ud i ng lap top co m pu ter s, cel l phones, and cam er as. ¶ 12 7. T h e p lain tiffs sh ar ed info r m at ion ab ou t Sh ield Group Sec uri ty tr ansact i ons a nd were sent to a t ra i l er to sl eep. ¶¶ 1 30- 31. A fte r tw o or th re e h o u rs of sle ep , Va n c e a n d E rt el, who we r e u nd e r the i mpr e s s i o n tha tthe y h a d b een re scued by thei r gov er nm ent, were i n f ora shock
. They we re a wa k e ne d a nd a r r e s t e d, h a nd c uffe d, b l i nd f o l de d, an d dr i ve n t o Ca m p Pr o spe r i ty, a U
. S
. m i l i ta r y c o m po und i n Baghdad
. ¶¶ 1 31 , 13 8- 39. There , pl ai nti ff s a l l ege , they wer e pl aced i n a c ag e, s tr i p- se ar ch ed, fi ng er pr i nt ed, a nd i ssu e d j umps ui t s . ¶ 1 4 0
. Th e y we r e i ns t r uc t e d t o ke ep th e i r c hins t o the i r c he s t s a nd no t t o s pe a k
. They w er e threa tened that i ftheydi d speak, t h ey w oul d have “e xc es si ve f o r ce ” i nfl i ct ed o n the m . ¶ 1 41
. Va nc e an d E rt el w er e t h e n ta ke n to se p ar at e c ells an d h eld in s o l i t a r y c o nfi n e me n tf o r wh a tth e y b e l i e v e wa s t wo days. ¶¶ 1 42- 43. F o r th o s e t wo d a y s , th e p l a i n t i ff s we r e he l d i n c o mm unica do i n the i r c e l l s , a nd we r e n o tp e r mi t t e d t o8 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442

The p lai n ti ff s w ere inf orm ed that they were being hel d as 3 “se curi ty i nter nees ” because they wo rked for a busine ss that (co n tin u ed ...) conta ct thei r f am i l i es orl aw yer s. T h ey w er e fed twice a day and a llow ed to go to the bathr oo m twice a day. They ea ch had a thin m at on co ncre te on wh i ch to sl eep, but the l i ghts w er e k ept o n 24 hours a day. ¶¶ 1 42, 1 6 1
. Aft e r t wo da y s , V a nc e a nd E rt elwe r e s ha c k l e d, bli nd fol d ed , and trans p orted to Ca m p Crop p er , a U
. S. m ilitaryf aci l i ty nearBaghdad I nter nati onalA i rpor t. ¶¶ 143

- 44. A fter the pla i nti ff s w er e tak en to Cam p Cropp er , they ex p erience d a nightm arish scen e in w hich they w ere det aine d i nc o m m uni ca do , i n s o l i ta r y c o nfi ne m en t, a nd su bj ec te d t o p hys i ca l a nd ps y ch o l o g i ca l t o r tu r e f o r the du ra ti on o fthei r i m pri sonm ent

— Van ce f o r th r ee months and Er t e l f o r s i x we e k s . ¶ ¶ 2 , 2 0
- 2 1 , 1 4 6

- 7 6 , 2 1 2
. They al l ege that al l of the abuse they endu re d i n th os e w eek s w as inflic te d by A m er ica n s, so m e m ilita ry offic ials an d so me c i v i l i a n o ffi c i a l s . ¶ 2 1
. T h e y a l l e g e th a tt he to rt u re th ey ex p er ien c ed w as o ft h e k in d “s u p p os ed ly reser ved f orte rr or i sts and so

- cal l ed enem y c om bata nts.” ¶ 2. I fthe pl aint i ff s’ a l l eg at i o ns a r e true , t wo y o ung Am er i ca n c i vi l i an s wer e try i ngt o do the r i g htthi ng by beco m i ng wh i stl ebl owers to the U. S. go ver nm ent, but f o un d the mse l v e s de t a i ne d in pr i s o n a nd t o r t ur ed b y t h eir ow n gov er n m en t, w ith ou t n ot ice to th eir f am i l i e s a nd wi th no s i g n o fwh e n the h a r s h ph y s i cal and ps yc h ologi calabuse would end. ¶¶ 1

- 4, 19 , 21 , 52
- 54, 16 1. 3N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 9

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 p ossessed larg e w eap on s cach e s a n d tha t m igh t be inv olv ed in dist ribu ti ng w eapons to ins urgent and terr oris t groups. ¶¶ 179- 80
. The pl ai nt i ff s ada m antly den y a ny wro ngdoi ng a nd all ege that the U.S. go vernm ent of fic ial s in I raq f abricat ed thes e al le gati ons, for which they w ere never charged, i n ret ali ati on f or theirw his tl eblow ing of“high- value inf orm ati on” that could refle ctpoorly on U
. S. offic ial s in I raq. ¶¶ 1, 4, 132. Vance and Erte l al l ege thataftertheyar ri ved at Ca mp Cr o pp e r the y we r e s t r i p- s e a r c he d wh i l e s t i l l b l i nd

f ol ded , and i ssued j um psuit s. ¶ 14 5. They were then h eld in s olit ar y c on fin em en t, in s m a ll, c old , d irt y c ells an d subj ec te d t o t o r tu r o us t ec hni que s f o rbi ddenb y the A rm y F i el d M anual and the Detai nee Tr eat m ent Act. ¶¶ 146 , 21 7- 18, 24 2- 44, 26 5. The lig h ts were kept on a t al l ti m es i n thei r cells, s o that the pl ai nti ff s e xperi enced “no darknes s day afterday” f or t h e enti re durati on o f th eir tim e a t C a m p C ro p p er . ¶¶ 21 , 147 . Th eir ce lls w ere kep t intolerab ly c old, excep t w he n th e gen erators faile d
. Id
. T h er e were bugs a nd feces o n the w al l s o f t h e c e l l s , in w h i c h th e y s p e n tm o s to fth e i r t i m e i n c o mple te i sol ati on. ¶ 1 46. Vance a n d E rtelwere dri ven t o e xh a us t i o n; e a c h ha d a c o nc re te s l ab f o r a b e d, butg ua r ds woul d wak e th em i fthe y wer e ev erc au g ht sle ep in g. ¶ ¶ 14 8, 14 9. H ea vy m et al a n d co u n tr y m u sic w as p u m p ed int o th eir ce lls at “in to ler ab ly-lo u d vo lum es, ” a nd theywere dep ri ved of m entalsti m ulus. ¶¶ 21, 14 6, 1 49
. The pl aint i ff s ea chhad o nl y o ne s hi r t an d a pair o f ov er al l s t o w earduri ng the i r confi nem ent. ¶ 1 52 . T h ey w er e o ften depri ved off oo d and w ate r10 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 and repeat edl y depri ved ofnecessar y m edi calcar e. ¶¶ 151 , 15 3- 55. Bey o nd the s l ee p de pr i va ti o n a nd the ha r sha nd i sol ating co nd i ti ons ofthei r detenti on, pl ai nti ff s a l l ege , the y we r e p hy s i c a l l y thr e a t e ne d, ab us e d, a nd a s s a ul ted by the a nonym ous U
. S. offi ci al s w or ki ng as guards. ¶ 157. They al l ege , forexam ple , that theyexper i enced “hoo ding” and w er e “ w al l ed, ” i.e. , s l amm ed i nt o wal l s whi l e be i ng l e d b l i nd f o l de d wi th t o we l s p l a c e d o v er the i r h e a ds to i nter ro gat i on s ess i ons. ¶¶ 2 1, 15 7. Pl ai nti ff s a l so cl ai m tha t th eywer e co nt i nuo us l y t o r m en te d b y the guar ds, wh o w oul d conduct shake

- dow ns o fthei r cel l s, som eti m es on the f al se prem i se that t h ey had disco ver ed con traba nd , and w ho see m ed int en t on keep ing the m off

bal ance m ental l y. ¶ 1 56. The c o ns ta ntthe m e o fth e ag g r es si ve i nt er r o g at i o ns w as a haunti ng o ne

— i f V a n c e a n d E r t e l d i d n o t “ do t he ri ght thi ng, ” they woul d n ever be a l l owed to l eave C am p C r op p er . ¶ 17 6. V an c e a n d E rt el w er e n oton ly i nt e r r o g a t e d b utc o nt i nu o us l y thr e a t e ne d b y g ua r ds w ho s aid theywould use “exces si ve f or ce” aga i nst them if th ey d id n otim m ed i a t e ly a n d co rre c tly co m p ly w ith ins tr u c tio n s. ¶ 15 8. T h e p lain tiffs alleg e t h at th is tr eat m ent l ast ed f orthe du ra ti on o fthei r detenti on at Cam p Cropper. ¶¶ 2 , 16 5, 17 6. W hi l e V ance a nd Er t e l we r e de t a i ne d a nd i nt e r r o g a t e d, thei r l ove d ones did notkno w w h ether they were al i ve or dea d
. ¶¶ 1, 161 . E ven tu all y, V an ce an d Erte l w ere all ow ed a few telep hon e calls to th eir fam il ies b u t w ere no t al l ow ed t o di sc l o se the i r l o ca ti o n o r a ny th i ngabo utN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 11

Plai nti ff s explai ned in oral argum en t that they were l im it ed 4 in id en tify ing oth er d efend an ts giv e n t h e na tu re o f the ir detenti on in a “st eri li zed s yst em . ” N o nam e tags w ere w orn by Cam p C ropp er offic ial s, and the A m eri can guard s had code nam es f or eac h other. The m agis tr ate jud ge ordered s om e di s c ove ry s o the pl ain ti ff s c oul d i dent i fy othe r defen dan ts . See M em orand um O pinion and O rder , D k t. N o. 89 (D ec. 21, 200 7) ( or d erin g lim ited d i sc o v e ry f or p lain tiffs to learn id en tities of u n k no w n d efend an ts resp on sible f or their (co n tin u ed ...) th e c on d itio n s o f th eir d et en tio n o r t h e n at u re of th eir interrogation s. ¶ 162. W he n they w ere not bein g i nt err o g at ed, the y w ere he l d i n a l m o stc o ns ta nts o l i ta r y c o nfi ne men t . V a nc e ’ s r e qu e s t s f o r cle r g y v i s i t s we r e de ni e d, an d pl aint i ff s wer e f o rbi ddent o c o r r es po nd w i tha l aw yero r a co urt. ¶¶ 1 63- 64. V a n c e a n d E r t e l w e r e n e v e r ch a r g e d w i th a n yc r i me or o the r wr o ng do i ng, n o r we r e the y de s i g na ted as secu rity t h reats. ¶¶ 1, 212, 214. I ns tead , both w ere ev en tu ally rele as ed an d d ro p p ed off atth e a irp or t in Baghdad to fi nd thei r w ay hom e. ¶¶ 208 , 21 0. Vance and Ertelbo th al l ege thattheywere devasta ted physi cal l y a nd em oti onal l y b y w hat they e nd ured at the hands o fthei r own go ver nm ent. ¶ 2 13.
B
. P roc edu ral H isto ry Fol l owing thei r re l eas e, the pla i nti ff s s ued fo rm er Se c re ta ry of D efe n se D on al d R u m sfe ld , in h is in d ivi dualc apa ci ty, a s wel l a s uni den ti fi ed defen dan ts . The 412 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 det en t i on and al l eg ed m i s t re at m en t ) ; M i nut e Ent ry ( Order on M ot i o n t o C o mpe l ) , Dk t . No
. 2 6 7( J u n . 1 4 , 2 0 1 0 ) ( g r a n t i ng plaint iff s’ m oti on to c om pel dis covery)
. Bu t the dis tr ic t c ourt later g r a n t e d the g ov ern m en t’ s m otio n to stay p ro ceed ing s, i n c l u di n g p e n di n g d i s c o v e r y r e q u e s t s t o i de n t i fy u n k n o wn defen dant s , d u ri ng thi s appe al
. Se e M i nut e Ent ry ( Order on M o tio n to St a y ), D k t. N o . 28 5 (N o v . 17, 20 1 0 ). pla i nti ff s a l so bro ught a cl ai m ag ai nst the U ni ted S tat es to re cove r the per sonalpro pertyse i zed fro m them at the t i m e they were ta ken into custo dy. Se cre tar y Rum sfel d and the U ni te d S tat es m ove d to dism i ss al l cl ai m s a gainst them
. The di strictco urt dism i sse d plainti ff s’ cl ai m s a gainst S ecr eta ryRum sfel d fo r denia l o fpro ceduraldue proc ess ( Count I I ) and denia l ofacc ess to the cour ts ( Count I I I ) , but d ec lined to dism i ss thei r cl ai m thatthei r tr eat m ent a m ounted to unconsti tuti onal c ruel, i nhum an, and degr adingtr eat
m en t ( Cou ntI )
. The di st r i ctc o ur t co nc l ude d tha t pl ainti ff s had suffi ci entl y pl ed Sec retar y Rum sfel d’s perso nal re sponsibi l i ty f orthei r al l ege d tre atm ent and that S e c r e t a r y R u ms fe l d w a s n o tp r o t e c t e d b y qu a l i fi e d i mm unity. The di str i ct c ourtal so rej ecte d th e d efendants’ ar gu m ent that “ speci alf acto rs ” pre cl ud e the r eco gni ti on of a B iven s re m edy f or tor ture of ci vi l i an U
. S. ci ti zens in a war z one. In a s epara te or der, the d ist ri ct c ourtdeni ed the U n ite d S tat es’ m oti on t o dism i ss the pl ai nti ff s’ p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y c l a i m. Th e se mat t e r s a r e n o w b e f o r e u s i n t wo s e pa r a t e a pp ea ls. T h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s rej ec tio n of a d efe n d an t’s qu ali-N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 13 fi ed i m m unity defense i s co nsi dered a finalj ud gm en t su bj ect to i m m edi ate appeal, so we have j uri sdict i on o verS ecr etaryRum sfel d’s appeal, docke ted as N o. 10

- 1687, pu rs uant to the g ener alappel l ate j uri sdic ti on sta tute, 28 U
. S. C. § 1 291. S ee Behre ns v. Pe l l e t ier, 516 U
. S. 29 9, 30 1 ( 1996 ) , ci ti ng M it chel l v. Fors yth , 472 U
. S. 511 (1985 ). Th e broad er Bive ns iss u e is “d ire c tly im p l ica te d by th e d efe n se of qu alifie d im m u n ity ” a n d is t h u s a lso p ro p er ly b efo re u s. Wi l ki ev. Rob b i ns , 551 U
. S. 537, 55 0 n. 4 ( 2007 ) , quoting Ha rtm a n v . M o o re, 54 7 U. S
. 2 50 , 2 57 n. 5 ( 20 06 )
. W e ha ve j ur i sdi ct i o n o ve r the U ni ted S tat es’ appeal o n the proper ty i ssue, docke ted as N o. 10

- 2442 , bec ause th e d i str i ct c ourtcer ti fi ed i ts ord er fori nt erlocut o r y ap p eal un d er 28 U
. S. C
. § 1292(b). W e ha ve c o ns o l i dat ed th e appe al s f o r di spo si ti o n.
II. A nalysis W e a ffi rm the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on o n the B ivens c laim s in N o. 10

- 1687, co ncl ud i ng i n thi s s equence, fro m th e narrow est issu e to the broa d est: ( a) that p lai nt iffs adequatel y al l ege d Secr eta ryRum sfel d’s perso nal r esponsibi l i ty f or thei r tr eat m ent, as re quire d under Bi v e ns ; (b) that Se cre tar y Rum sfel d i s no t e nti tl ed to quali fi ed i m m unity o n the defe nse th eo ry thata re asonab l e g ove rnm ent o ffi ci alco uld have bel i eved in 2006 th atthe abus e pl aint if fs h av e al l eg ed was no t unc o ns ti tu
ti onal ; and ( c) thata Bive ns rem ed y s h ou ld be av aila b le t o c i v i l i a n U. S
. ci t i z e n s i n a w a r z o n e , a tl e a s tf o r c l a i ms of tortu r e or w orse. W e reverse th e d istri ct cou rt’s d ecision in N o. 10-24 4 2 , c onc lud ing tha t the district cou rt14 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442
s h o u l d h a v e d i s mi s s e d t h e p l a i n t i ff s ’ p r o p e r t y c l a i ms und erthe “m i l i tar y a uthor i ty” exce pti on t o the Ad m ini str ati ve Pro cedure A ct.
A
. P ersonal Responsi bil ity T o proc eed w ith th eir Bive ns cl ai m s, pl ai n tiffs m ust all ege fact s ind icating th at Secreta ry Ru m sfeld w as p erso n ally inv olv ed in a n d re sp on sib le for th e alleg ed co n st ituti onal vi ol ati ons. S ee Iq b al , 129 S. C t. at 19 48 -49 ; A le jo v. Heller, 328 F.3d 9 30 , 9 36 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ). “B ec au se vic ar ious l i abi l ity i s inapp l i cabl e t o Bive ns and § 1 983 sui ts, a pl ai nti ffm ust pl ead thatea ch Gover nm en t-o ffi ci al defe nd ant, thr ough the o ffi ci al ’ s o w n i nd ivid ual act i ons, has v i ol ate d the Consti tuti on. ” Iq b al , 12 9 S
. Ct. at19 48. As the S upr eme Co urt s ai d i n Iq b al , “[ t] he f acto rs nece ssar y t o est abl i sh a Bive ns v i o l at i o n wi ll v ary wi ththe const i tuti onalpro vi si on a t is sue. ” Id
. Unl i k e i n Iq bal, w hich w as a d iscrim ination ca se, w he re the p la in t iff w as re quir ed to p l ead thatthe defe nd ant a cted with di sc r i m inato r y pur po se , the min i m um kno wl edg e an d i nt e nt r e qu i r e d he r e wo ul d b e de l ib e r a t e i nd i ffe r e nc e , as inan alo go u s c as es inv olv in g p ris on an d sc h oo l offic ials i n dom est i c se ttings. S ee Far m e rv. Br e nna n , 511 U
. S. 825, 84 2 ( 1994 ) ( fi nd i ng tha t a pri son offi ci alact s with “del iber ate indiffer ence” i fthe “offi ci alact ed orf ai l ed to act despit e hi s know l ed ge ofa substa nti alr i sk of se rio u s h ar m ”); T
. E
. v. Grindle, 599 F.3d 583 , 591 (7th C ir. 2010 ) ( “W hen a sta te acto r’ s del iber ate i nd i ffer en c e d epri ves som eone o fh is orherpro tect ed l iber ty i nter est i n b o di l y i nt eg r i ty, tha t ac to r v i o l at es the Co ns ti tu ti o n,N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 15

The defen d an ts rel y he avi l y on Iqbal, b u t the ca se is clearly 5 di s t i nguis ha bl e bec aus e ofthe na t ur e ofthe al l eg ed c ons t i t utional vi ol at i ons . The i s s ue i n Iq b a l wa s n o twh a tt he defen dants ( Att or ne y Gene ra l As hc ro ftan d FBI Dir ec t or M u eller) actu ally d id , b u t their su b jectiv e p u rp oses

— w hether the y a c t ed o n the bas i s ofr el i gi ous or e thni c bi as or i ns t ea d ac t ed t o fi ghtt er ro ri s m . The p lai nt i ffal l eg ed thatthe Att or ne y Gene ra l an d the FBI Dir ec t or ha d es t abl i s he d and im plem en ted polic ie s f oll ow ing the at tac ks ofSeptem ber 11, 20 01 tha t led to the d eten tion of the p lain tiff u nd er h arsh c ondi t i ons s epa ra te fr om the ge ne ra l pr i s on popul at i on, al l eg ed ly b eca u se of a p olicy tha t k ep t pr ison ers sep ara te b eca u se oftheir race , rel igi on, or nat ional ori gin. Because there w as a l eg i t i m at e ex pl ana t i on f or the pol i c y
— the “ non di s c ri m i nat or y i nt en tt o de t ai n a l i en s who were ill eg al l y pr es en ti n the U nited Sta tes an d w ho ha d p ote ntia l con ne ction s to th ose w ho com m it ted t error is t at tac ks”

— the Cou rthel d that pers o n a l r e s p o n s ib i l i t y w a s n o tp l e d s u ffi c i e n t l y w h e r e th e c o mp lain t pr ov id ed no p lau sible b asis f or rejec t i ng tha t legitim ate ex p la n a tio n . Iqbal, 12 9 S
. Ct
. at195 1-52
. I n thi s c as e, by c ont r a s t, the i nqui r y be f or e us i s whe the r the pl a i nt i ff s h a ve pled suffic ie ntl y that defe nd an t S ecr etar y R um sfel d p ers ona l l y e s t abl i s he d the r el eva ntpol i c i es thata u thor i ze d the u n co n sti tu tio n a l to rt u re th ey a lle g e t h ey su ffer ed
. Iq b a l di d not di s t urb the B iv ens and s ect ion 1983 pri ncipl es holding that a s uper vi s or m ay be l i abl e as ani ndi vi dual f or wron gs he p erso na lly d irected or a u tho rized his sub or d ina tes to inflict. (co n tin u ed ...) re gar dle ss ofwh etherthe acto r i s a superv i soro r subo r di na te, a nd the a ct o r may be he l d l i ab l e f o r the resu lti ng harm
. ”). 516 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 5 A s i m i l ar dis t i nc t i on appl i es t o the Su pre m e Cour t ’ s r ec en t dec i s i on i n A shc ro

f tv. a l-K idd, 13 1 S
. Ct
. 20 74 ( 20 11 )
. The re the Sup rem e C o urt hel d that wh ere the plaint iff’ s se izure und er the fede ra l m at er i al witn ess s t atut e was obj ec t i vel y r ea s onab le, the plai nti ffcould not pursue a B i ven s c l ai m onthe the or y th at the s ei zur e was pr et ex t ual, bas ed i n f ac tona dif ferent and un const itutional s ub j ect ive purp ose. See i d. a t 2 0 8 2 -8 3
. I n ar gui ng tha t the di str i ct c ourter re d i n hol ding that q u alifie d im m u n ity d oe s no t pr ot ec t Sec re ta ry R u m sfe ld fro m l i abi l i ty, the defe nd ants bl end both the i ssue of S ec r et ar y Rumsfel d’ s per so na l r es po ns ibi l i tyf o r pl ainti ff s’ tr eat m ent and the doctr i ne of quali fi ed im m unity. These i ssues ar e a ctually q u i te dist i nct, and w e t re at them se parat el y. W e be gi n by add re ssingthe defe nd ants’ p er so n al r e s p on sib ility arg u m en ts , w h ich are p rim ar ily about w hether the pla i nti ff s have ple d a suffi ci en t le vel of d et ail a b ou t Se c re ta ry R u m sfe ld ’s p er so n al re sp on sib ili ty to survi ve a m oti on t o dism i ss und erRule 12 ( b) ( 6) o fthe F ede r alRul es o fCi vi l Pr o ce du re. W e fi r ste xa m i ne th e a p p l i c ab l e p l e a d i n gr e qu i r e me n t s . We th e n s u mm a r ize the d etailed allegations of Secreta ry Ru m sfeld’s p e r s o n a l r e s p o n s ib i l i t y fr o m th e C o mpl a i n t . F i n a l l y, we addr es s th e defen dan ts’ sp ec i fi c co nc erns abo utthe Com pla i nt. W e c on c lu d e t h at th e p la i n tiffs h av e s u fficie n tly al l ege d Sec retar y Rum sfel d’s perso nal r esponsibi l i ty. W h i l e i t m ay be unusualthatsuch a hi gh- l eve l o ffi ci al w oul d be per sonal l y r esponsibl e forthe tr eat m ent o fN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 17 detai nees, her e we ar e a d d re ssing an unu sualsi tuati on w here i ssues co ncer ni ng har sh i nter ro gat i on t ec hniques an d de te nt i o n po l i ci es wer e d ecided, a t l ea sta s th e pl ainti ff s hav e pl ed, atthe hi ghestl ev els o f the federa l go ver n m en t. W e c on c lu d e t h at p lain tiffs h av e s u fficie n tly alle ge d th atSec re ta ry R u m sfe ld a c te d d elib er at ely in author i zi ng i nter ro gat i on t echni qu es that am ount t o tor ture . ( W hetherhe a ctual l y di d so re m ai ns to be seen . ) W e di fferwith the di str i ct c ourti n one re spect, though. W e thi nk tha t the pl ai nti ff s’ pl eadi ngs, i ftr ue, have s uffi ci en tly a l l eg ed no t o nl y S ec r et ar y Rumsfel d’s perso nal r esponsibi l i ty i n cr eat i ng th e pol i ci es that l ed to the plaintiff s’ treatm en t bu t also deliberate ind if

fer ence by Se cre tar y Rum sfel d i n f ai l i ng to actto st op the t or ture o fthes e d et ai nees despit e a ctualkno w l edge ofr epor ts ofdetainee abuse.
1. A pplicabl e P le ading R eq uirem ents The Feder alRule s ofCi vi l Pro cedure i m pose no s peci al p lead ing requ irem en ts for B iven s cl ai m s, i ncl ud i ng tho se ag ainst f or m erhi gh- ra nki ng g ove rnm ent o ffi ci al s. S ee Sw ie rki e wi cz v. S ore ma N. A. , 534 U
. S. 506, 513-14 (2002 ). The no ti ce pl eadi ngs ta nda r d unde r Rul e 8 o fthe Fed eral Ru les ofCivil Proc ed ure ap p li es, an d a plaintiff i s r equi re d to provi de a “ shor t a nd p lai n sta tem ent o f th e c laim sh o w i n g t h at th e p lea d er is en tit led to relie f.” Fed. R. Ci v. P. 8( a). The com pla i nt wil l sur vi ve a m oti on to dism i ss i fi t m eet s the “pl ausibi l ity” st andard appli ed in Iq b al a nd Tw om bly
. S ee Iq b al , 1 2 9 S
. Ct
. a t1 949, quoti ng B ell A tl antic C orp. v. Tw om bly, 55 0 U.S
. 54 4, 57 018 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 ( 20 07 ) ( ho l di ngtha t “a c o m pl aintmustc o ntai n s uffi ci en t f actualm att er, acc epted as tr ue, to ‘ state a c l ai m to r el i ef that i s pl ausible on i ts f ace. ’ ”)
. “The pl ausibi l i ty st an dar d i s no t ak i n t o a ‘ pr obab i l i tyr equi r ement, ’ b ut i t as k s f o r m o r e th an a sh ee r po ss ibi l i ty th ata de fen dan t has a cted unl aw fully. ” Id
. These pl eadi ng r ule s are m eant to “ ‘ f ocus l i ti gat i on o n the m er i ts ofa cl ai m ’ r ather t han on t echni cal i ti es that m i ght kee p pla i nti ff s out ofco urt. ” B roo ks v. R o ss , 57 8 F
. 3d 574, 58 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09 ) , quoting Sw ie rkie w icz , 534 U
. S. at 514. A t the sam e tim e, “a defendant shoul d not be f o r ce d t o unde r g o costl y di sc o ve r y unl es s th e co m pl aint con tains en ou gh d e t a il
. . . to i nd icate th at th e plaintiff has a substanti alcas e. ” Li m e s t oneD e ve l opm e ntCorp. v. Vil l ageof

Le m ont, 5 2 0 F
. 3 d 7 9 7, 8 0 2
- 0 3 ( 7 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 8 )
. We agr ee w i th the di str i ct c ourt ’ s obser vati on in t h i s ca se:
“ Iq bal und oubte dly r equi re s v i gi l ance o n ourpartto en su re th at cla im s w h ich d o n otst at e a p lau sib le c laim f orr el i efar e no t a l l owed t o occupy the ti m e o f h igh -ra n kin g g ov er n m en t o ffi c ials . I t is n ot, ho w ev er , a cate gor i calbaro n cl ai m s a gain st these o ffi ci al s. ” Va nce, 694 F . S up p. 2d at96 1. “W hen a pla i nti ffpre sents w el l

- ple ade d factual al l ega ti ons suffi ci ent t o ra i se a right to rel iefabove a sp ecu lative l evel, that plain t iff i s e nti tl ed to have hi s cl ai m sur vi ve a m oti on t o di smi ss e ve n i fo ne o fthe de fen dan ts i s a hi g h- r an k i ng gov er nm ent o ffi ci al
. ” Id
.N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 19 2. The Com pl ai nt W e a g r e e wi th the di s t r i c t c o ur t tha t the pl a i nt i ff s have alle ge d su fficie n t fa c ts to sh ow th at Sec re ta ry R u m sfe ld perso nal l y e stabl i shed the re leva nt pol i ci es that caused the a l l eg ed vi ol ati ons ofthei r const i tuti onalr i ghts du r i ngde t e nt i o n. T he de t a i l e d C o mpl a i ntp r o v i ded S e c r e t a r y R u ms fe l d s u ffi c i e n tn o t i c e o fth e c l a i ms aga i nst hi m and sta ted p l ausibl e cl ai m s that sati sfy Rul e 8 a nd Iq b al a nd Tw om bly
. The pla i nti ff s a l l ege thatS ecr eta ryRum sfel d devi sed an d aut horized policies that p erm it the us e of tortu re inth eir int e rro ga tio n an d d et en tio n . ¶ 21 7. T h ey cla im that he was “per sonal l y r esponsibl e fordevelo ping, author i zi ng, superv i si ng, i m ple m enti ng, audit i ng and/o r r efo r m i ngthe pol i ci es , pa tt erns o r pr ac ti ce s g o ve r ni ng th e . . . tre at m en t . . . [an d ] int er ro ga tio n . . . of d et ain ee s.” ¶ 26. S pec i fi ca l l y, the y a l l eg e th ati n 2 00 2, S ec r etary R um sfeld “p erson all y ap p roved a l ist oftorturou s interr o g a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s f o r u s e o n d e t a i n e e s ” a tG u a n t a n a mo B a y th a t, “ [ c ] o n t r a r y t o . . . th e th e n - g o v e r nin gA r my Fiel d M an ua l 34-52 .
. . i nc lud ed th e u s e of 20-hou r i nt err o g a t i o n s , i s o l a t i o n f o r u p t o 3 0 d a y s , a n d s e n s o r y de pr i v a tio n .” ¶ 23 2. In20 03 , Sec re ta ry R u m sfe ld alleg ed ly “r escind ed hi s f or m al author i zati on to use t h ose te ch ni que s g en er al l y, b utt o o kno meas ur es to end the pract i ces w hi ch had by th en be com e ingra i ned, norto c on firm th at th e p ra c tic es w er e in fac t . . . ter m in at ed .” ¶ 23 3. Instea d, he autho ri zed the use o ftechniques o ut s i de o fthe Ar my F i e l d Ma nual i fh e p e r s o na l l y a pp ro ve d th em . Id . Th e pl ai nti ff s a l so al l ege thati n 200 3,20 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442

T he p lain tiffs elab or ate o n th e Sep tem b er 20 03 p olicy in the ir 6 brief, noti ng that the Senate A rm ed Service s Co m m it tee r e p o r t e d th a t t h i s l i st “ d r e w h e a v i l y ” o n S e c r e t a r y R u m sf e l d ’s guid ance for G uantanam o Bay
. See Inqui ry Int o TheTr e a t me nt of Det ai nee s i n U
. S. C ust ody, Co m m i t t e e o n Ar m e d S e r vi c e s ( Nov. 2 0 , 2 0 0 8 ) , a va i l a bl e a th t t p: //www . a r m ed-s e r vi c e s . s e na t e . go v/ P u b lic a t ion s/D etain ee R ep or t Fin al_ A p ril 22 2 00 9.p d f (last a c c e s s e d A u g . 4 , 2 0 1 1 )
. “ A c c o r d i n g t o L T G S a n c h e z , th e S e p t e m- (co n tin u ed ...) Se cre tar y Rum sfel d app ro ved a new set o fpol i ci es that i nc l ud e d i s o l a t i o n f o r u p t o 3 0 da y s , di e t a r y ma ni pu lat ion, an d sle ep d ep riv at i on (th e “ 20 03 L ist ”). ¶ 23 4. In ad d itio nto th es e fo rm al p olic ies , Sec r e ta ry R u m sfe ld a l s o a utho r i z e d a ddi t i o na l h a r s h t e c hn i qu e s i fh e a pprove d them i n advance. ¶ 2 35. The p l ai nti ff s a l l ege thatS ecr eta ryRum sfel d then dir ecte d that the te chniques i n pla ce a t Guantan am o Bay a l s o b e e x t e n d e d t o I r a q . ¶ ¶ 2 3 5
- 3 9
. T h e p l a i n t i ff s c l a i m, f ori nstance , t h at S ecr eta ryRum sfel d sent M aj orGenera l Geoffre y M i l l erto Iraq in A ugust 2 003 to evaluate how pri so n s coul d gai n m or e “ acti onabl e intel l i gence ” fro m detainees. ¶ 2 36. In Se pte m ber20 03, i n re sponse to G ener alM i l l er ’ s s ugges ti on t o use m or e a ggr ess i ve i nt e r r o g a t i o n po l i c i e s i n I r a q, a nd a s a l l e g e dl y “ di r e c t e d, appr o ve d a nd s an ct i o ned” byS ec r et ar y Rumsfel d, the c om m an d er of th e U n it e d S t at es -led m ilita ry co alit ion in I ra q si gned a m em or andu m autho ri zi ng the u se o f 29 i n t e r r o g a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s ( th e “ I r a qL i s t ” ) , wh i c h i ncl ud ed senso rydepri vati on, l i ght c ontr ol, a n d the use oflo u d m usi c. ¶ 2 38. The co m m ander l ate r m odi fi ed 6N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 21

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 6 ber 14 , 20 03 pol i c y ‘ dre w hea vi l y’ o n the Se c re t ar y of D efense ’ s A pril 16, 2003 guida n ce f or GT M O
. ” Id . at20 1 . A pa rt y w hose pl eading is being att acked on ap peal und er Rule 12 ( b) (6 ) m ay el abor at e on hi s al l eg at i ons s o l ong as the el aborations are consi st ent w ith the pleading. See C hav ez v. Il l i noi s Sta t e Pol i ce, 25 1 F .3d 61 2 , 65 0 (7t h C ir . 20 0 1 ); H igh sm ith v. C h ry sl er CreditC orp . , 18 F. 3d 434, 439- 40 ( 7th Cir
. 1994) ( r e v e r s i n g d i s mi s s a l i n r e l e v a n tp a r tb a s e d o n s u c h n e w e l a bo ra tio n s); D aw son v . G eneral M o to rs C orp . , 977 F. 2d 369, 372 ( 7th Cir. 1992) ( revers ing dism is sal based on new el a b o rat i ons )
. I fa par t y c an win re ver s al with s uc h n ew e l abor at i ons on its pl ea di ngs , the n the s e pl ai nt i ff s c an defen d the den i al of th e m o tio n to d ism iss i n t h e s a m e w a y . R ey n old s v . C B S p or ts Bar, Inc . , 62 3 F
. 3d 1 14 3, 11 46

- 47( 7th C ir. 2010 ) ( c onc l udi ng after Iq b a l a nd Tw o m b ly tha t pla intiff s m ay stillsug g est f acts ou tsid e of the p lead ing s to sho w t h a t their co m p lain ts sh o u ld n o t b e d ism iss ed ). the m em or andu m , but i nter ro gat ors were st i l l gi ven di s c r e t i o n t o s ubj e c tde t a i ne e s t o i nt e r r o g a t i o n metho ds i nv o l v i ngma ni pu l a t i o n o fl i g ht i ng, he a t i ng, f o o d, shel ter, and cl othi ng o fthe detai nees. ¶ 2 39. The pla i nti ff s a l so al l ege thatS ecr eta ryRum sfe ld w as w el l aware ofd et ain ee abuse because o fbo th pu bl i c and i nter nal r epor ts docum enti ng the abuse
. ¶¶ 2 40- 41, 25 2. In M ay 2003 , the I nternati onalRed Cros s b e g a n r e po r t i ngo n the ab us e o f de t a i ne e s i n U. S
. c us t o dy in I raq . ¶ 240. Th e plaintiff s all ege th at th en -Secretary of St at e C olin P ow ell c on firm ed th at Sec re ta ry R u m sfe ld knew ofthe re p or ts ofabuse and re gul ar l y r epor ted th em to P re sid en t B u sh th ro u gh ou t 2 0 03
. Id
. They a l so22 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442

The pl ai nt i ff s e l abor at e on this p oin ti n the i r bri ef, c i t i ng the 7 Fi nal Repor t of the I ndepe nden t Pan el t o Revi ew D oD Det en tion O p era t i on s ( A u g . 24 , 20 04 ), av ailab le at h t t p : //www. defe nse. gov /new s/A ug2004/d20040824fi nalre port. pd f( lastacces se d A ug. 4, 2011)
. This report, add res se d fr om f orm er Secr etar y ofD efense Schl es inger to Se cre tar y R u m sfe ld, noted that“the changes in DoD i nter rogati on po lic ie s . . . w ere an el em en t c ont ribut i ng t o unc er t ai nt i es i n the fi el d as to w h ic h techniques w ere authorize d” and that“the augm ente d tec hniques f or Gu antanam o m igra te d to . . . Ir aq w here they were nei ther l im it ed nor safeguard ed.” Id
. at 14. al l eg e th atS ec r et ar y Ru m sfeld al so kne w ofo th eri nve st i g ati ve r epo r ts i nt o de ta i ne e ab us e i n I r aq, i nc l udi ng a rep ort by form er Secretary of D efense Jam es Sch lesi ng er. ¶ 24 1. 7 Congre ss too k a cti on in re sponse to al l ega ti on s o f d e t a i n e e ab u s e . ¶ 1 4
. F i r s t, C o n g r e s s p a s s e d th e R o n a l d W. Reagan N ati onalDefense A uthor i zati on Act f orFi scal Year 2005 , wh i ch r eaffi rm ed the U
. S. p ro hibi ti on a gainst to r tu r e te ch ni que s th atv i o l at e th e Uni te d S ta te s Con

st i tu ti o n a nd the Ge ne va Co nv en ti o ns . Pl
. Br
. a t 7. The l aw i nstr ucted then- Se cre tar y Rum sfel d t o tak e a cti on to sto p abusi ve i nter ro gat i on t echni ques: T he Secretary of D efense shall ensu re that policies are pr es cr ibe d no t l at ertha n 1 50 da y s afte r the da te o fthe enactm en t . . . to ensur e that m em ber s o fthe A rm ed For ces, and al l per sons a c ting
. . . withi n f aci l i ti es of th e Arm ed F o r ce s, t r ea t per so ns de tained b y the U ni ted St ate s Gover nm ent i n a hum ane m anner co ns i st en t wi ththe i nt erna ti o na l o bl i g at i o ns a ndN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 23 l aw s o fthe U ni ted S tat es and the p olic ies setf or th in section 10 91(b). Pu b. L
. N o. 108-375, § 1092, 118 Stat
. 1811, 2069-70 (2004), co d ifi ed at1 0 U. S
. C. § 8 01 , s ta t. no te § 1 09 2. The pla i nti ff s a rgue that, despi te that specifi c di re cti on fro m Con g r es s, S ec r et ar y R um sfel d t o o kno a ct i o n t o r es cind una utho r i ze d i nt err o g at i o n metho ds be f o r e th e pl ainti ff s were re l eas ed fro m custo dy i n 200 6. ¶¶ 2 44, 25 2. I n 200 5, Congr ess enact ed the Detai nee Tr eatm ent Act, w hi ch l im ite d a llow ab le in te rrog ati on t echni ques to tho se a utho r i ze d in th e Arm y F i el d M an ua l, thus speci fi cal l y o utl aw i ng the i nter ro gat i on tec hniques that Se cre tary R um sfel d had earl i erautho ri zed, and w hi ch the p l a i nt i ff s a l l e g e i n de t a i l th e y s uffe r e d a tthe h a nd s o fU. S
. mil i ta r y pe r so nne l i n 2 00 6. ¶ ¶ 242- 43
. The Detai nee Tr eat m ent Act st ate d i n re l evantpart : N o perso n in t h e custody o r und erthe effecti ve co nt r o l o fthe De par tmento fDe fen se or u nd er de te nti on in a Depart m ent o fDefen se fa c i l i ty shal l be subj ect to any tr eat m ent or techni que of inter ro gati on not autho ri zed byand l i ste d i n the U ni ted S tat es Arm y F i el d M an ua l o n Int el l i g en ce Int er r o g at i o n. Pu b. L
. 109-148 , § 1002 (a), 119 Stat. 2680 , 2739 (2 005), codi fi ed at 10 U
. S. C. § 8 01, st at. not e § 10 02. The pl aint i ff s co nt en d that, a fte r the e na ct m en t o fthe Detai nee Tr eat m ent Act, S ecr eta ryRum sfel d conti nued to c o ndo ne the u se o ft ec hni que s fr o m o ut si de th e Ar my F i e l d Ma n u a l
. ¶ 2 4 4
. T h e y a l l e g e th a to n th e s a me day thatCon gr ess passe d the Detainee Tr eat m ent Act24 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442

O n app eal, the plaint iff s ci te a new spaper ar t i c l e re por t i ng o n 8 the d ev elop m en t of this classifi ed set of interro g atio n m eth od s. See E ric Sch m itt, “N ew A rm y R u les M ay Sn ar l T a lks w ith M cCain on D etai nee Issu e, ” N ew York Ti m es ( D ec. 14, 2 0 0 5 ), a v a i l a b le at ht t p: //w w w .nytim es.com /200 5/12 /14/p olitics/ 14detain. h tm l ( las t ac ces se d A ug. 4, 2011) ( “The A rm y has a p p ro v ed a n ew , cla ssi fie d set o f in te rr o g a tio n m et h o d s . . . Th e t e c hn i q ue s a r e i nc l ude d i n a 10- pag e c las si f ie d a d d en d u m to a n e w A rm y fiel d m a n u a l . . .”). T h e p la in tiffs con ten d tha t Secre tary R u m sfeld ev en tu ally ab an d on ed eff or ts to classify the F ield M an u al, b u t tha t the “D ecem b e r Field M anu al ” was in opera t i on duri ng the i r det en t i on and was no t replac ed un ti l Septem ber 2006, afterp lainti ff s had been rel eas ed, w h en a new fi el d m anual ( Fiel d M anual 2- 22. 3) w as institu te d
. ¶ 2 44 ; P l. B r. at 11. Th e d issent criticizes p lain tiffs’ re lian ce on the ne wspape r re por t, butpl ai nt i ff s ’ c as e f or personal res pon sibili ty res ts on all egati ons that are fa r m ore ex t en s i ve. I n a ny e ven t, the s e ar e di s put es off ac tthatc ann ot be re s ol ved by a Rul e 12 ( b) ( 6) m ot i on. i n Decem ber20 05, Sec re tar y Rum sfel d add ed ten cl ass i fi ed pages to the Fi el d M anual, wh i ch i nclud ed cruel, i nhum an , and degr adingte chniques, such a s those al l ege dlyused o n the pla i nti ffs (the pl ai nti ff s r eferto th is a s “ th e D ec em b er Field M an u al” ). Id
. The defend ants des cr ibe thi s al l eg at i o n a s spe cul at i ve a nd un true , b ut w e m u st accept these well

- ple d al l ega ti ons as tr ue at the Rul e 1 2( b) ( 6) st age o fthe proce edi ngs. 8 T h e p lain tiffs als o c laim th at Sec re ta ry R u m sfe l d , in the f ace ofbo th inte rnalr epor ts and w el l

- pu bl i ci zed accusat i ons ofdetainee m i str eat m ent a nd t or ture by U. S
. f o r ce s i n Ir aq, di d no t i nv es ti g at e o r c o r r ec t th eN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 25 ab us es , de spi te hi s ac tu alknowl edg e th atU. S
. c i ti ze ns w er e be i ng and w ou ld be detai ned and int er ro gat ed usi ng the unc onst i tuti onalabusi ve pract i ces that he had ear l i erautho ri zed. ¶ 252. T he p l ai nti ff s a l l ege thatr epor ts of th e abu sive treatm en t of d etaine es by th e U .S . m il itary wer e wi del y r epo r te d b y A m ne sty Int erna ti o na l, the Uni te d Nat i o ns Ass i st an ce M i ss i o n forI r aq, a nd the I nt erna ti o na l Co m m i tt ee ofthe Re d Cr o ss . ¶ ¶ 24 5- 51
. The pl aint i ff s cont en d tha t S ec r et ar y Rumsfel d was the “offi ci alr esponsible fo r ter m i nati ng thi s patt er n of ab us e an d r efo r m i ngthe po l i ci es c au sing i t. ” ¶ 25 2. Inste ad, the p laintiff s a l l ege , S ecr eta ryRum sfel d too k no a ct i o n b ec au se “ th i s co nduc t wa s be i ngc ar r i ed o ut pu rs uant to the i nter ro gat i on a nd detent i on pol i ci es [ he] hi m sel fcr eat ed and i m ple m ented. ” Id
.
3. Secreta ry R um sfeld’s P erson a l R espo nsibil ityis Pl ed Suffi cie ntly W e s ee n o d efic ien c y in t h e C om p lain t t h atw ou ld w ar ra nt di sm i ssa l o n the i ssue ofper sonalr esponsib il i ty. Taki ng the f actualal l ega ti on s in t he co m pla i nt as tr ue, as w e m u st, th e p lain tiffs h av e p led f a c ts sh ow in g t h at it is pla u s ible, an d not m erely spec ulative, that Secret ary Rum sfel d was pe r so na l l y r esp o ns ibl e f o r c r ea tingthe pol i c i e s tha tc a us e d the a l l e g e d u nc o ns t i t ut i o na l t o r t ur e. The Com pla i n t al so al l ege s that the S ecr eta rywas re sponsibl e fornotco nfo rm i ng the trea tm ent o fthe detainees to the s tandards s et f or th i n the Detai nee Tr eat
m en t A ct. Con gress sp ecifi ca ll y orde red the Sec retary to “ensur e” that detai nees i n custo dy ofthe U n i ted26 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442

To be c l ea r, we r ea d the Com pl ai ntas as s er t i ng c l ai m s ar i s i ng 9 u nd er th e U nited States C on stitutio n, no t the D e t a inee T rea tm en tAct, whi c h doe s no tpr ovi d e fo r a pr i vat e ri ghtofac t i on. T he D etain ee T rea tm en t A ct an d the Se creta ry ’ s resp on sibi l i t ies i n e xe c ut i ng i tar e re l eva nti n e val uat i ng the Se c re t ar y’ s kno wle dge ofan d re sp onsibi l i t y f or the t re at m en t of d etain ees. S ta te s wer e tr ea te d i n a “ hum ane m anne r c o ns i st en t wi ththe i nt erna ti o na l o bl i g at i o ns a nd l aws o fthe U ni ted S tat es. ” S ee R onal d W
. Reag an N ati onalDefense A uthor i zati on Act f orFi scalY ear2005, 10 U
. S. C. § 8 01, st at. note § 1092
. 9 The pla i n ti ff s hav e a dequ ate l y pl ed the “kind o fact i ve an d i nt en ti o na l di sr eg ar d f or thei r t r ea tment ” th atthe defe nd ants s u gge st “w oul d be nece ssa ryto es tabl i sh li abi l i ty . ” F i r st, whi l e S ec r et ar y Rumsfel d di d no t p ersonal l y c ar ryo ut the al l ege d vio lati ons ofpl ai nti ff s’ con st i tu ti o na l r i g ht s, the pl aint i ff s ha ve a l l eg ed th athe perso nal l y c re ate d the pol i ci es that author i zed and l ed to thei r tor ture . I fadequatel y pl ed, thati s s uffi ci ent a t th is s ta ge to alleg e p er s o n a l inv olv em en t. Se e, e . g. , D oyle v . C am el ot Ca reCente rs, Inc. , 3 05 F
. 3d 60 3, 6 15 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02 ) ( fi ndi ngun d er 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 98 3 th ata l l eg at i o ns that age ncy’ s m ostse ni oro ffi ci al s were perso nal l y “ re s p o n s ib l e f o r c r e a t i n gth e p o l i c i e s , p r a c t i c e s a n d c u s t o ms that caused the co nsti tutio n aldepri vati ons . . . suffi ce at thi s s tag e in the l i ti gat i on t o dem on st ra te . . . per sonal i nv o lvem en t i n [ th e] pur po r te d unc o ns ti tu ti o na l c o nd u c t” ); St e i dl v. Gr am l ey , 151 F. 3d 739, 74 1 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98)N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 27 ( fi nd i ng tha t a warden is “not l i abl e foran i sol ate d failu re o fhi s s ubor dinat es to car ryo ut pri son pol i ci es, how ever

— unl ess th e su bo r di na te s ar e ac ting( o r f ai l i ng t o a c t ) o n th e wa r d e n ’ s i n s t r u c t i o ns ”) ; s e e a l s o Ma r t i n A. Sc h w ar tz , Se ct i on 1983 Li t igat i on: Cl ai m s an d Def e nses , § 7.19[C], at 7-239 (4th ed
. 2010) (noting th at “su p ervisory offi ci al s who prom ulg ate pol i ci es that ar e e nfo rce d by subor dinat es ar e l i abl e i f the enf or cem ent of t h e poli cy c a u se s a vio lat ion of fed er ally p ro te c te d righ ts ”); D odds v. Ri ch ar ds on , 6 14 F
. 3d 11 85 , 1 19 9 ( 10 thCi r . 2 01 0) ( co ncl ud i ng afterIq b al that“§ 1983 a l l ows a pl ai nti ffto i m po se l i ab i l i tyupo n a de fen d ant- su per vi so r who cre ate s, pro m ulg ate s, i m ple m ents, o r i n so m e o ther w ay posse sse s r esponsibi l i ty f orthe continued o perat i on of a p oli cy th e e n forcem en t (by the d efend an t-sup ervisor or he r sub or d in a tes) of w hich ” su bj ects plaintiff s to co n st itu ti o n a l vio lat ion s); R ich a rdso n v . Go o rd, 34 7 F.3d 431 , 435 (2d Cir. 2 0 0 3 ) (conc lud ing tha t sup ervisory l i abi l i ty u n d er § 1983 m ay be s how n, i nteral i a, by “cr eat i on o fa p oli cy orcusto m thatsa ncti oned co nd uct amoun tingt o a co ns ti tu ti o na l v i o l at i o n, o r a l l o wi ng su ch a policy or cu stom to contin ue . ”). Se cond, the pla in ti ff s hav e a dequ ate l y a l l ege d that Se cre tar y Rum sfel d acted with d el iber ate i nd i ffer ence byno t ens uringtha t th e det aine es wer e tr ea te d i n a hum ane m anner despit e hi s knowle dge of w i despread detai nee m i str eat m ent. S ee Fa rm er, 5 11 U. S
. a t 84 2 ( co ncl ud i ng tha t i t i s s uffi c i e nt i f a pl a i nt i ff b r i ng i ng an Eighth A m endm ent c l ai m sho w s that the “offi ci alact ed orf ai l ed to actdespi te hi s know l edg e ofa substa nti al28 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 risk ofserious ha rm ”); Gayton v. M cCoy, 59 3 F
. 3d 610, 6 2 0 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 ) ( c i t a t i o ns o mi t t e d) ( “ S i mpl y pu t, an o ffi ci al‘ m us t bo thb e aw are o ff ac ts fr o m whi chthe i nfe ren c e coul d be dra w n that a s ubstanti alr i sk of ser io u s harm exists, and he m us t also draw that i nferen ce .’ ”). Th e plaintiff s hav e plau sibly all eged Secretary Rum sfel d’s perso nal r esponsibi l i ty on thi s theor y. F i n a l l y, we r ej e c t th e d e fe n d a n t s ’ a r g u me n t th a tpl ai nti ff s’ cl ai m s r esto n “nake d asse rt i ons” ofi l l ega l co nd uct w i thout f actual devel opm ent. The defendants se ek to po ke hol es i n anumbe r o fthe pl aint i ff s’ a l l eg at i o ns , b ut w e do not fi nd thei r ar gum ents convi nc in g, at l eas t a t the plea ding sta ge und erRule 12 ( b) ( 6)
. The defendants ar gue that the pl ai nti ff s’ onl y “ concr ete al l ega ti ons” about detenti on a nd i nter ro gat i on pol i ci es re l ate to po l i ci es that di d no t ev ena ppl y t o U. S
. c i ti ze ns i n I r aq, an d w ere, in any case, rescind ed be fore th e plaintiff s w er e deta i ned. W e a re notper suaded by this ar gum ent. T he plaintiff s h ave ad eq ua tely al leged that Secretary Rum sfel d w as re spon sib l e forcr eat i ng pol i ci es that gov er ned the t re atm ent o fthe detai nees in I ra q and f ornot conf or m i ng the tr eat m ent o fthe detai nees i n I ra q to the Deta i nee Tr eat m ent Act. W e al so a r e no t pe r su ade d by the defen dan ts ’ a r g um en t that the Deta i nee Tr eat m ent Act supers ed ed the pol i ci es d escribed i n th e C om p lai nt . Th is argu m e n t m isun d ersta nd s the pl ai nti ffs’ poi nt

— that Secretary R um sfeld’s pol i ci es continued to co nd one the unc on stituti onalprac ti ces he had a l l eg edl y c r ea te d e ve n a fte r Co ng r es s m an d ated othe rw ise. Th e plaintiff s’ al legation tha t SecretaryN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 29 Rum sfel d secr etl y s ought to ad d perm i ssibl e t echni ques to the Army F i el d M an ua l a fte r Co ng r es s pas se d the Detai nee Tr eat m ent Act i s pl ausibl e a nd supports th ei r b r o ade r a l l eg at i o n tha t S ec r et ar y Rum sfel d c o nti nued t o pr o mot e a nd c o nd o ne unconsti tuti onal tr eat m ent o fdetainees. I t r em ain s t o be s een whether pl aint i ff s ca n pr o ve thi s, b utthe y ne ed not ha ve do ne so yet . The defe nd ants al so ar gue that the p l ai nti ff s o ffer n othi ng to l i nk the guar ds’ thre ats o fexce ssi ve f or ce o r the deni alo fm edi calcar e t o a p ar tic ula r pol i cy i ssued b y Se c re ta ry R u m sfe ld . E x am in in g t h es e p ar tic u lar all eg at i o ns as pa r t o fthe t o ta l i tyo fa l l eg at i o ns a nd the p rogram f or dea ling so harsh ly w ith d etaine es, how e v er, w e thi nk the y a re s u fficientl y pl ed to sur vi ve the m oti on to d ism iss . W ith d isc ov er y of t h e i d e n tit ies of th e in d ivid u als inv olv ed , w e e x p ec t p lain t i f f s t o re fin e t h eir theo ries a nd thei r al l ega ti ons concerni ng the defendants’ i nd i vi du alr esponsibi l i ti es. F i na l l y, whi l e a su per vi so r ’ s m er e “know l edg e an d acqui esce nce” i s no t s uffi ci ent t o i m pose l iab ili ty und er Iq b al , 129 S. Ct
. at 1949, w e agree w ith th e d istri ct cou rt that outsi de docum entat i on o fdetainee abuse, suc h as r e p o r t s b y i n t e r n a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , p r o v i d e s s o me supp or t forthe pla usibi l i ty ofpl ai nti ffs’ al l ega ti ons. Va nce, 69 4 F
. S up p. 2d at96 4; se e a l so al

- Kidd v . Ashcroft, 58 0 F
. 3d 94 9, 9 76 ( 9th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( fi ndi ngtha t co m pl aint alle ge s fa c ts th at m igh t s u p p or t liab ility w h er e it alle ge s t h at “ ‘ab u se s o c c u rrin g . . . w er e h i gh ly publ i ci ze d i n the me d ia, c o ng r es si o na l t es ti m o ny a nd30 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442
cor re spondence, and i n vario u s r epor ts by gov er nm ental and non-g ove rnm entalenti ti es ,’ wh i ch co uld have gi ven [ the defendant] suffi c ien t noti ce t o re quir e a ffi rm ati ve acts to superv i se and cor re ct th e ac ti ons ofhi s s ubor d in at es ”), r e v’ d on ot he rgroun ds , 1 31 S . C t. 20 74 (20 11 ). In su m , w e h old th at th e p lai n t i f fs h av e s u fficie n tly an d p lau sib ly p led Se cre tary Rum sfel d’s pers on al re sp on sibi l i ty.
B
. Q ualifi ed Im m unity W e no w tur n to wh etherq u al i fi ed i m m unity pr ote cts Se cre tar y Rum sfel d fr om l i abi l i ty. The qual i fi ed i m m unity doctr i ne pro tect s g ove rnm ent o ffi ci al s “ fro m l i abi l i ty f orci vi l dam age s in sof aras thei r conduct does not vi ol ate cle arl y e stabl i shed sta tutory o r const i tuti onal ri ghts of w hi ch a re aso nabl e perso n w ou ld have known
. ” Harl o w v . Fitzgerald, 4 5 7U. S
. 8 0 0 , 8 1 8 ( 1 9 8 2 )
. As th e S upr eme Co urt ex pl aine d i n Pears on v. Cal l ahan , 12 9 S
. C t . 8 08 , 8 1 5 ( 2 0 0 9 ) , th e d o c t r i n e “ b a l a n c e s t wo i m port ant inter est s

— th e n ee d to h old p u b lic off icia ls ac c ou n ta b le w h en t h ey ex er c ise p ow er irre sp on sib ly and the nee d to shi eld offi ci al s fro m har ass m ent, di str actio n , a nd l i abi l i ty w hen theyper f or m thei r du ti es re asonab l y. ” W e r evi ew de nov o the dis tri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on denyi ng a m oti on t o dism i ss on the bas i s o fqual i fi ed im m u n ity
. Alva r ado v. Li t s cher, 2 67 F.3d 64 8, 651 (7th Cir. 2001 ). To r es o l ve the qua l i fi ed i m m uni tyde fen se , we us e th e tw o- ste p sequence that the S up re m e Cour t a rt i cul at ed i n Sau ci er v . Ka tz , 53 3 U.S
. 19 4, 20 0- 01 ( 2001 )
. W e fi rs tN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 31 d et er m in e w h et h er “[t ]ak e n in t h e ligh t m os t fa vo ra b le to t he par ty ass er ti ng the inj ury . . . the f acts al l ege d show the [ defendants’] co nd uct vi ol ate d a co nsti tuti onal ri ght. ” Id. at2 01
. S ec o nd, we det er m i ne if th e r i g ht was “ cl ea r ly establ i sh ed” a t th e ti m e o fthe r el ev an t ev en ts . Id
. W hi l e the Courth as since deci ded that applying the Sau ci ert e s t se q u en tia lly is n otm an d at or y, it i s s ti l l “o ften a pp ro pri ate . ” Pe ar s on , 1 29 S. Ct. at81 8. S ee, e . g. , al

- Kidd, 13 1 S
. Ct. 20 74 ( deci ding both const i tuti onal m er its an d qu alifie d im m u n ity ); Hanes v. Z uri ck, 57 8 F. 3d 491 ( 7t h C ir. 20 09) ( sam e)
. H er e i t m ake s s ense to apply both ste ps ofthe Sa uc ier tes t, j ust a s the di str i ct c o ur tdi d. W e a gr ee w i th the dis tr i ct c ourtthatpl ai nti ff s hav e ar ti cul ate d fa cts that, i ftr ue, w oul d show the vi ol ati on o fa c l e a r l y e s t ab l i s h e d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t . In f a c t, the defe nd ants’ ar gum en t to the c ontr ar y e vapor ate s upon re vi ew . The pl ai nti ffs have pl ed that they w er e s ubj ecte d to tre at m en t t h at co n st itu te d to rt u re by U .S. offic i als w h i le in U .S. cu st od y. O n w h at co n c eiv ab le b as is c ou ld a U. S
. pu bli c o ffi ci alpo ss ibl y c o nc l ude tha t i t was c o nst itu tio n al t o t or tu re U .S. citiz en s? See , e. g. , 1 8 U. S
. C. § 23 40 A ( st atut e cr i m i na l i zingo ve r se as t o r tu r e) ; Co nventi on Agai nst Tor ture and Other Cruel, Inhum an, o r Degra ding Tre at m ent o r Punishm ent, S
. Tre atyDoc. N o. 10 0-2 0 (1 98 8), 14 65 U .N .T .S. 85 , 1 1 3 ( 1 9 84 ), at A rt . 2 ( “ No e xc e pt i o na l c i r c ums t a nc e s wh a t s o e v e r, wh e the r a s tat e o fwar o r a threa t of w ar , inter nal pol i ti cali nstabi l i ty orany othe r pu b lic em er gency, m ay be invoke d as a jus tific at ion of to rt u re .”); Sider m an de B lake v . R epubl ic32 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 of Arge ntina , 9 65 F
. 2d 69 9, 7 17( 9th Ci r . 1 99 2) ( co nc l udi ng that “i t would be unthi nkabl e t o concl ud e o therthan that acts o fo fficia l to rture vi ol ate custo m ar y inter nati onall aw . A nd wh i l e no t a l l custo m ar y i n te rn ati onal l aw car ri es w i th i t the f or ce o fa j us c oge ns n o r m, the prohibi ti on a gainst o ffi cial tor ture has att ai ned that statu s”). T h e w ro n gd oin g a l l eg ed h er e v iola te s t h e m os t b as ic te r m s o fthe c o ns ti tu ti o na l c o m pac t be twe eno urg o ve r nm ent a nd the ci ti zen s ofthi s co untry. The defendants see m to ag re e, and go so f aras to st ate : W e do not ar gue th at w el l

- ple d, f actual l y- supp or ted an d co nc r et e al l eg at i o ns o f, f o r i ns ta nc e, p er si st en t exposure to extr em e co l d, susta i ned fail ure to su ppl y f o o d a nd wat er, s us ta i ne d s l ee p de pr i va ti o n, an d t h e fa ilu re to fu rn ish es se n tia l m ed ica l ca re , i f ofsuffi ci ent s eve rit y and durati on, would not sta te a vi o l at i o n o fs ubs ta nt i ve due pr o ce ss i n the c o nte xt of m ilita ry d et en tio n in a w ar zo n e. D e f
. B r . 5 0
. We c o n c u r w i th th a tv i e w. V i e win gth e c o mpla i nt i n the l i ght m ostfavor abl e t o the pl ai nti ff s, as we musta t th i s st ag e, thi s is e xa ct l y whatthe pl ainti ff s hav e pl ed. There can be n o doubt thatthe del iber ate i nfl i ct i o n o fs uchtrea tmento n U. S
. c i ti ze ns , e ve n in a w ar zo n e, is u n c on st itu tio n al.
1. The All ege d Ab us eVi ol at e d a Cons t i t ut i onal Right I fthe pla i nti ff s’ all ega ti ons oftorture ar e t rue, ther e wasN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 33

T he p l a i ntiffs ha v e p resen ted an d b riefed their cla im as a 10 sub stan tiv e d u e p ro cess claim un d er th e F ifth A m en d m en t. A s th e S u p rem e C ou rt ha s held : “D u e p ro cess requ ires tha t a pr et ri al detainee n ot be pun i shed
. A s en t en c ed i nm at e, onthe other hand , m ay be pu n ish ed , al though that punishm ent m ay not be ‘ cruel and u nusual’ und er the Eighth Am endm ent. ” B el l v. Wol

f i sh , 4 4 1 U. S
. 5 2 0 , 5 3 7n . 1 6 ( 1 9 7 9) (empha s i s a dde d) ( c onc l udi ng thatthe c our tofappe al s appr opr i ately rel i ed o n the Due Pr oc es s Cl aus e rather thanthe Ei ghth Am en dm en t in ad ju d i c atin g the rig hts o f p retria l d etain ees); see also Ingraham v . Wright, 430 U.S
. 651, 671 n. 40 ( 1977) ( finding that “[ w] he r e the s t a t e s e e ks t o i m po s e pu ni s hme nt wi tho ut [ an adjud ic ati on ofguilt ] , the perti nent c onst itutional guarantee i s the Due Pr oc es s Cl aus e” )
. The gove rn m en ts ugge s t s thatthe con stitutio na l inqu ir y h e r e req u ires this cou rt to “w ad e into the m urky w a te rs o fthatm ostam orpho us ofcons ti tuti onal do ct ri nes, s ub st anti ve d ue proc es s. ” See Tu n v. Whit ti cker, 398 F. 3 d 8 9 9 , 9 0 0 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )
. As we have c on s i s t e nt l y s a i d, ho w ev er, “[t] he p ro tection s f or p re-t r i a l d etain ees are ‘ at least as gr ea ta s the Ei ghth Am en dm en tpr ot ec t i ons ava i l abl e t o a c onvi c t ed pr i s one r’
. . . an d we fre que nt l y c ons i der the s t a nd a r ds t o be a na l og ou s . ” Was h ing ton v. L aP or te C ou n ty S h er iff’s D ep ’t, 306 F .3d 51 5, 51 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02 ) , quo t i ng C ity of R eve re v . M as sa chuse t t s G en. Hosp. , 46 3 U .S. 2 3 9 , 24 4 (19 8 3 ). W e thu s loo k to the case law for b oth sub stan t i v e d u e p ro cess an d the E igh th A m en d m en t in exam inin g the p lain tiffs’ claim s. W e a r e c on fi de nttha tthe F r a m e r s m e a ntt o f orbi d a bu s i ve tr eatm ent ofuncharged and u n convict ed d etai nees w here the sam e ab u siv e t r eatm en t of a con v icted p rison er w ou ld b e p ro h ib ite d
. a vi o l at i o n o fthe ir const i tu ti o na lr i g htt o s ubs ta nt i ve due p ro c ess. “S ubstanti ve du e pr oce ss i nvol ves the e xerci se

1034 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 ofgo ver nm entalpow erwitho ut r eas onabl e j usti fi cati o n. . . . I t i s m o sto fte n de sc r ibe d a s a n ab us e o fg o ve r nm ent pow er w hi ch ‘ shock s the c onsci ence. ’ ” Tun , 39 8 F
. 3d at 902, quoting R ochin v. Ca li forni a , 342 U
. S. 1 65, 172 ( 1952 ). The p h y s i c a l o r me n t a l t o r t u r e o fU. S
. c i t i z e n s , a s the dist ri ct c ourtco ncl ud ed, i s a para dig m o fco nd uct that “shoc ks the c onsci ence. ” Va nce, 69 4 F
. S u p p. 2d at96 6. T he Sup rem e C ou rt “ha s long held that certain interro gat i on techni ques, ei ther i n i sol ati on or as appli ed to th e un iqu e ch aract eristi cs of a particu lar s u sp ect, are so offensi ve to a ci vi l i zed sy ste m o fj usti ce that they m u st be co n d em n ed u n d er th e D u e P ro c es s C lau se .” M i l l e rv. Fe nt on , 474 U
. S. 10 4, 10 9 ( 1985 ) ; se e a l so Wi l ke rs on v. U t ah , 99 U .S. 13 0, 13 6 (1 87 8) (c on c lu d i n g t h at “itis safe to affirm that pu nish m en ts of torture .
. . are f o rb i dde n b y . . . the Co ns t i t ut i o n” )
. T he de fe nd a nt s do not ar gue that th e p laintiff s’ al l ega ti ons, i fpl ed cor re ctl y, do not am ount t o a vi ol ati on o fa c onst i tuti onalr i ght. Se e Def
. Br. at50
- 51. Doi ng so would be futi l e. The de fe nd a nt s i ns t e a d a r g ue tha tp l a i nt i ff s h ave not all eged m o r e than “vagu e, cu rsory, an d conc lusory r efer en ce s to [ th ei r ] c o ndi ti o ns o fc o nfi ne m en t, wi th o ut suffi c i ent f actuali nfo rm ati on fro m wh i ch to ev al uate th eir co n st itu tio n al c laim .” T h is a rg u m en t, w h ich is mor e o fa p l e a din ga r g ume ntt o e xt e nd Iq bal an d Tw om b l y th an an arg u m en t a b ou t q u alifie d im m u n ity , i s not persuas i ve. The defendants ar gue, forexam ple , that w h ile th e p la i n t i ffs a lleg e t h at th eir ce lls w er e e x tr em ely co l d, the y pr o vi de no “fa ctua l c o nt ex t, no e l ab o r at i o n, no com p arisons.” A t this stage of t h e case, w e areN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 35
sa tis fied w ith th e d es c rip tio nof th e c ells a s “e x tr em ely c old. ” Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 84 and F or m s 10- 15 (sa m p le com pla i nts th at “i l l ustr ate the si m pli ci ty and bre vi ty th at th ese ru les conte m p late”). The defe nd ants al so sugge st that the pl ai nti ff s di d not d etail in the ir C om p lai nt w he th er they sough t and w ere denie d w ar m ercl othi ng o r bl anket s. Even if it w as not ne ce ss ar y, the pl aint i ff s actual l y s pec i fi ed th e cl o th i ng a n d b e d d i n g th a t wa s a v a i l ab l e t o e a c h o fth e m

— a si ngl e j um psuitand a thi n pla sti c m at. The defen dants al so a r g ue tha t pl aint i ff s di d no t spe cify how l o ng they w er e depri ved of sl eep. That l eve l of detail is n ot re q u ire d atth is s ta ge , bu t a f a i r rea d in g of t h is Com pla i nt i nd i cate s that the sl eep depri vati on t acti cs w er e a co nstant for the du ra ti on o fthei r detenti on, as w as the physi c al and psychol ogi calabuse bypri son offi ci al s. As the de fen dan ts a ckno wl edg e, a subs ta nt i ve due proce ss i nquiry re q uir es “an a pp ra i salo fthe tot al i ty of the c i rcum sta nces ra therthan a f or m al i sti c exam i n ati on offi xed el em ents. ” S ee A rm st rong v. Squadri to , 15 2 F
. 3d 56 4, 5 70 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 8) ( re ve r sings um m ar y j udg m en t f o r de fen dan ts )
. The pl aint i ff s ha ve a l l eg ed su ffi ci en t detai l s t o concl ud e a t th i s s tag e o fthe proce edi ngs th at, i ft r ue , the i r t r ea tment, whenc ons i der ed i n the ag g r eg at e, a m o unte d t o t o r tu r e i n v i o l at i o n o fthe i r r i g ht36 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442

The di s trict cour tthough tthe Com pl ai ntwas s uffi c i en t, an d 11 s o do we. Bute venifw e fou nd s om e i nade qua c y i n the d etails of the a l rea d y d etailed p lead ing , thr ou g h a n u nu sua lly vigorou s ext ensi on ofthe Iqbal p le ading st and ard, f or ex am ple, p l a i n tiffs w ou ld b e en titled to an op p or tu nity to am en d their C om p lain t to rem e d y an y p erce iv ed d efects. B asic fairne ss an d the l iber al am en dm en tpol i c y unde r Fe der al Rul e ofCiv il Procedu re Rule 15( a) ( 2) w ould require thatplain tiffs be given an o p p o r t u nity to cu re th e d efects, ifthey cou ld , at least abs en tundue del ay, bad f ai th, di l at or y m ot i ve, or undue p re ju d ic e. S ee , e . g. , B au sc h v. St rykerC orp. , 630 F. 3d 546, 562 (7 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ); A irbo rn e B eep ers & Video , Inc . v. A T & TM ob il ity LLC , 4 9 9 F .3 d 6 6 3 , 6 6 6 (7 th C i r . 2 0 0 7 ). T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’s re c en tdec i s i ons i n Iq b a l a nd Tw ombl y have creat ed new uncertai nti es a b out the le vel ofdetai l requir ed in pleadings und er the no t i c e pl ea di ng r egi m e ofthe Fe der al Rul es ofCi vi l Pr oc e dur e . Ci r c ui ta nd d i s t r i c tc ou r t s h a ve n oty e ti de nt i fi e d a clear b ou nd ary b etw een w ha t is sufficien t an d w ha t is no t. S ee , e. g. , Swa n s o n v . C i t i b a n kN
. A. , 614 F. 3d 400, 403 ( 7th Cir
. 20 10 ) ( ob se rvi ng thatc our t s ar e “s t i l l s t ru ggl i ng” with “ how m uch highe r th e S u prem e Court m eant to s et the bar, w hen itdec i ded no ton l y Tw o m b ly, butal s o Er i cks o n v . Par dus , 551 U. S
. 8 9 ( 2 0 0 7 ) , a nd [ Iqbal ] , ” and no ti ng that “[ t] his i s no t an e a s y q u e s t i o n t o a n s we r ” ) ; s e e al s o S w anso n , 614 F. 3d at 411 ( Posner, J
. , di ssenting i n part) ( noti ng the “opaque languag e” thatthe Su pre m e Cour tus ed t o e s t abl i s h the “pl aus ibi l i t y” re qui re m en t )
. As Pr ofes s or M i l l erha s s ugge s t ed, “i nc ons i s t en t ruli ngs on v ir tuall y identi cal com plaint s m ay w el l be based o n i n di v i du a l j u dg e s hav i n g qu i t e d i ffe r e n ts u b j e c t i v e v i e ws o f w h a t a lle g a tio n s a re p la u sib le .” S ee A rt h u r R . M ill er , From C on l ey to Tw om bly t o Iqbal: A D ou ble P l ay o n t he Fed eralR u l es (co n tin u ed ...) to substa nti ve du e pr oce ss. 11N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 37

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 11 of C i vilP rocedu re, 60 Duke L. J. 1, 3 0- 31 ( 20 10 ) ( des c ribi ng “co nfu sion an d d isarra y a m on g jud g es an d law y ers” in appl yi ng Iqbal )
. R ule 1 ins tr ucts courts to const rue th e r u les to secu re th e “ju st” d eterm ina tion of law suits, a n d th ere is a general p o lic y i n f avor of all ow ing parti es to have thei r c ase s d ec id ed o n th ei r m er its . Se e, e. g. , Swi e rk i ewic z , 534 U.S
. at 514; Ch r i s t e n s e n v . Co u n ty o f B o o ne , 4 8 3 F .3d 45 4 , 45 8 (7t h C ir . 20 0 7 ). A r eve rs al f or i nade qua t e pl ea di ng would re qui re an oppor t unity to c ure the def ectunles s itw ere cl ear tha t th e def ect c ou l d n otbe c ur e d. Though Vance and Erte l were neverchar ged with, l et al o ne c onvi ct ed o f, a ny c r i m e, o urpr ec ede nt s co nc e r ningthe ab us e o fc o nv i c te d c r i mi na l s h e l p g ui de o urthink i ngab o utwh e the r the all e g e d ab us e v i o l a t e d a const i tuti onalr i gh t. A s the S up re m e Cour t co ncl ud ed re centl y, “[p] ri sone rs reta i n the esse nce o fhum an di gni ty i nherenti n al l p er so ns. Respectf orthatdi gni ty ani m ate s th e Ei g hth Am en dm en t pr o hibi ti o n ag ains t cr ue l a nd unus ua l puni sh m en t. The b as i c co nc eptunde r l y i ngthe Eighth A m endm ent i s no thi ng l ess than th e d ign i ty of m an. ” B rown v. Plata , 13 1 S
. Ct
. 1 91 0, 1 92 8 ( 20 11 ) ( ci ta ti o ns om i tte d); se e a l so E st el lev. Ga m ble, 4 2 9 U. S
. 9 7, 1 0 2 ( 1976 ) ( concl u d i ng tha t the Ei ghth Am endm ent “ em bodi es br o ad an d i deal isti c co nc ept s o fdi g ni ty, c i vi l i ze d s ta nd a r d s , h u ma n i t y, a n d d e c e n c y . . . a g a i n s tw h i c h we m u st ev alu at e p en al m ea su re s” ) (cit at ion s o m i t t e d ). I t is i m po r ta ntto ke ep th es e funda m en ta l c o nc ept s i n mi nd as w e focus on the cl ai m s be f or e us. S ee Fo r r e s t v. Pr i ne,38 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 6 2 0 F
. 3 d 7 3 9 , 74 4 ( 7 th Ci r . 20 1 0 ) (b o r r o wi ngEi g hth Am e nd

m en t stan d ard s to ana lyze pre-trialde tainee ’s cl aim ). Ex am i ni ng the pl ai nti ff s’ cl ai m s a gainst the bac kdro p o fthe S upr eme Co ur t’ s dec i si o ns o n p riso n c o ndi ti o ns o fc o n fi n e me n ta nd p r i s o n t r e a t me n tc a s e s , w e r e me mberthatabuse i n A m er i can pri sons w as once author i zed and even thought o fas parto fthe pu nish m ent o fpri son er s. Se e, e . g. , Ho pe v . P elz er, 53 6 U. S
. 7 30 ( 20 02 ) ( det ai l i ng au th o r i ze d s ta te p ra ct i ce o fc ha i ni ngi nm at es t o o ne an ot h er an d to h itc h in g p os ts in t h e h otsu n ); H ut t o v. Fin ney, 4 37 U
. S. 67 8, 68 2 nn. 4- 5 ( 1978 ) , ci ti ng Tall ey v . St ephe ns , 2 47F
. S upp . 68 3 ( E. D. Ark
. 1 96 5) ( des cr ibing the l ashi ng o fi nm ate s with a “ w oo den-ha n d led l eather str ap fi ve fe et lo ng and f our i nches wide” as part of a utho r i z e d c o r po r a l p un i s hme ntp r o g r a m) a nd Jac ks on v. Bis hop , 2 68 F
. S upp. 8 04 ( E. D. Ark
. 19 67 ) ( des cr ibingthe us e o fa “ Tuc k ert el eph o ne , ” a ha nd- cr an k ed instrument “used to adm i ni ste r el ectr i cal shock s to var i ou s sensi ti ve par ts o fa n inm at e’ s bo dy” i n pr i so n tha t au th o r i ze d the u se of a s tr ap to p u n ish p ris on er s), rem a nd ed with ord ers fo r broa der relief

, 404 F.2d 571 ( 8th Cir. 1968) (Blackm un , J
. ). To day, the i dea tha t a pr i so ne r i n a U. S
. p ri so n mi g ht be abused i n such a m an n er and not have j ud i ci al re cour se i s unthi nkabl e. W hi l e t he Consti tuti on “does n ot m an date co m f or tabl e pr i sons, . . . nei therdoes i t per m i t inhum ane o nes. ” Fa rm er, 511 U
. S. at 832 ( c i t a t i o n s o mi t t e d ) ( n o t i n gth a tth e E i g h th Ame n d m en t re quir es that pri son offi ci al s “ ensure thati nm ate s re cei ve adequate foo d, cl othi ng, shel ter, and m edi cal car e, and .
. . ‘ tak e r eas onabl e m eas ures to guar an teeN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 39 the s afetyo fthe i nm ate s’ ”)
. I fa p ris on eri n a U.S
. pri son ha d hi s he a d c o v e r e d a nd wa s r e pe a t e dl y “ wa l l e d, ” o r sla m m ed i nto w al l s o n the w ay to i nter ro gat i on ses si ons, we w oul d have no tr oubl e a ckno w ledgi ng tha t hi s wel l

- ple d al l ega tio ns, i ftr ue, would descr ibe a vio lat i o n o fh is c on st itu tio n al rig h ts . See , e . g. , H uds on v. M cM i l lian , 50 3 U.S
. 1 ( 1992 ) ( concl ud i ng tha t the use of e x c es siv e p h ys ica l forc e a ga i n s t a p ris on er m ay co n st it ut e c r ue l a nd u nu s ua l p un i s hme nte v e n whe r e p r i s o ne r is not seriously i njured ). I fa p r i s o ne r wa s ke pt awak e a s muc h a s p o s s ib l e , k e pt i n ins uffer ab l y c o l d c o ndi ti o ns , and n o t g i ve n s uffi ci en t bedding orcl othi ng, we w oul d l i kewis e be l i eve that th er e co ul d wel l ha ve b ee n a v i o l at i o n o fhi s co ns ti tu
tio n al rig h ts . See , e . g. , Wilso n v . Seiter, 50 1 U.S
. 29 4, 30 4 ( 1991 ) ( cl ar i fyi ng th at “[ s ] o meco nd i ti ons ofco nfinem ent m ay es tabl i sh an Ei ghth Am endm ent v i ol ati on
‘ i n c o mb i n a t i o n ’ wh e n e a c h wo u l d n o t d o s o a l o n e, b ut onl y when t hey ha ve a m utual l y e nfo rcing effect that p ro d u c es th e d ep riv at ion of a sin gle , id e n tifia b le hum an need s uch as fo od , warm th, o r exer ci se

— f or exam ple , a l ow cel l te m perature at ni gh t c om bi ned w i th a f ai l ur e to i ss ue b lanket s”)
. I fa U. S
. pr i so ne r wi tha ser i ous m edi calco nd i ti on is deni ed m edi calat tenti on orhas necess ar y m edi ci ne with h eld, thatto o can vi ol ate the pri sone r’ s co nsti tutio n al r i ghts. S ee E st el le, 429 U
. S. at10 4 ( concl ud i ng tha t d el iber ate i nd i ffer ence to se r i o us medi ca l ne eds s ta te s a cl ai m unde r the Eighth A m endm ent) ; B oar d v
. Fa r nham , 39 4 F
. 3d 469, 48 0- 81 ( 7th Cir
. 2005 ) ( hol ding that al l ega ti ons ofd en tal pr o bl ems c o ns ti tute o bj ec ti ve l y s er i o us ha r m unde r the40 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 Eighth A m endm ent)
. The pl ai nti ff s in thi s ca se, detained w ith out charg es, have pl ed i n detai l al l ega ti ons of such se ver e con d iti ons and tre atm ent, the l i kes o fwh i ch co ur ts ha ve he l d unc o ns ti tu ti o na l w hen a ppl i ed to c o nvi cted cr i m i nal s in U .S
. pri sons. The al l ega ti ons of abuse sta te cl ai m s forvi ol ati ons ofthe const i tuti onal ri ght no t t o be depri ved ofl iberty w ithout substa nti ve d u e p r o c e s s o fl a w.
2. The R igh ts Were Cl early E stab lished To deci de qual i fi ed i m m unity, we turn next to whethe r the a l l eg ed r i g ht s wer e cl ea r l y e st ab l i sh ed. “ The rel ev an t, di spo si ti ve i nqui r y i n det er m i ni ng whether a ri ght i s cl ear l y est abl i shed i s w hether i t w oul d be cle ar to a re as on ab le offic er th at h is c o n d u c t w as u n law fu l in th e s i tuati on he confro nted. ” B rossea u v . Ha ug en , 54 3 U
. S. 194, 19 9 ( 2004 ) , quoting Sau ci er, 5 33 U. S
. a t 20 2. The qu estion is w he th er a reasona ble offi cial in Secreta ry Rum sfel d’ s po si ti o n wo ul d ha ve kno wn th atthe co nduc t he a l l eg edl y a utho r i ze d v i o l at ed th e Co ns ti tu
ti on o fthe U ni ted S tat es. This i s no t a cas e where the pr ecis e viol ati on m ust ha ve b ee n pr ev i o us l y he l d unl awful
. W he r e th e co ns ti tu
ti onalvi ol ati on is patent l y obvi ous a nd the conto urs of th e rig h t s u fficie n tl y c l e a r , a co n tr ollin g c as e o n p oin t is not neede d t o defe at a defense ofqual i fi ed i m m unity. Se e, e . g. , Hope, 5 3 6 U. S
. a t 74 1 ( r e v e r s i ng g r a nto f qu a l i fi e d i mm un i t y f o r p r i s o n o ffi c i a l s wh o c ha i ne d a p risoner to a pos t fo r se ven hou rs i n th e hot su n); Na nd a v. M o ss , 41 2 F.3d 83 6, 84 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)
. Giv enN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 41 th e to tality of the p lai nt iffs’ all egation s, th at th ey w ere interrogate d w ith p hy sical vi olence and threat s , w ere kept i n extrem el y c ol d cel l s without a dequ ate cl othi ng, w er e conti nuousl y depri ved ofsl eep, and w er e o ften de p r i v e d o ff o o d , c l o th i n g, a n d me d i c a l c a r e , a r ea so nabl e o ffi ci ali n Se cretary Rum sfel d’s posi ti on in 200 6 would h ave kno wn th atthi s amoun te d t o unc o ns ti tu
ti onaltr eat m ent o fa ci vi l ian U.S
. ci ti zen deta i nee. S ee, e . g. , Fa rm er, 511 U .S. at 8 32 ; H ud son , 503 U .S. at 4 ; E st el le, 4 2 9 U. S
. a t 1 0 4
. L e s t th e r e mi g h t h a v e b ee n a ny u n c er ta in ty on th e po in t, C on gr es s ha d tw ic e rec en tly and express l y pr ov i ded as m uch as a m att ero f sta tutory l aw . S ee Ronal d W
. Reag an N ati onalDefense A uthor i zati on Act f orFi scalYear20 05, 10 U
. S. C. § 8 01, st at. note § 1092 ( sta ti ng tha t U.S
. m i l i tar y pol i cy prohib i ts te ch ni que s th at vi o l at e th e Con st i tu ti o n a nd i ns truct i ng S ec r et ar y of Defen se t o e ns ur e th atpo l i ce s ar e co nsi st ent wi thi nt erna ti o na l o bl i g at i o ns a nd l aws o fthe U ni ted S ta te s) ; Detainee Tr eat m ent Act, 10 U
. S. C. § 8 01, sta t. n ot. § 1002 ( l i m i ti ng i nter ro gat i on t echni ques to th ose au th orized in th e A rm y Fiel d M an ua l)
. The defe nd ants offera fi nal ar gu m en t that the l aw was no t su ffi ci ently de ve l o ped wi thr es pec t to the t r ea tment o fde ta i ne es i n the c o nt ex t o fmil i ta r y de tenti o n f o r the p lain tiffs t o a lleg e a d eq u at ely th e v iola tio n of a c lea rly e s t ab l i sh e d c o ns t i t ut i o na l r i g htb y S e c r e t a r y Rums fe l d. Th e de fe nd a nt s arg ue tha tthe S up r e me Co ur ta nd a ppel l ate co urts “have st rugg l ed, and continue t o str uggl e, w i th the pre ci se c onst i tuti onalco ntour s a pp l i cabl e t o the det enti on o fi nd i vi du al s

— ci ti zen an d non- ci ti zen al i ke

— se i zed i n a forei gn war zo ne. ” On thi s point,42 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 how eve r, the defe nd ants ci te onl y ca se s invol vi ng pro ced u ra l d u e p ro c es s c laim s: M un a f v. G eren , 5 5 3 U. S. 67 4 (20 08 ), Boum e di e nev. Bush , 553 U. S
. 7 2 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) , a nd Ham di v. R um sf

el d, 54 2 U.S
. 50 7 ( 2004 )
. Those proc edurali ssues ar e u n d o u b t e d l y d i ffi c u l t . B u tth e y s h e d n o u s e fu l l i g ht o n h o w a r ea so nabl e fede r alo ffi ci almightha ve tho ug ht that the C onst i tuti on per m i tte d him to to rture, o r to au th o r i ze the t o r tu r e o f, a c ivi l i anU. S
. c i ti ze n. The de fen da nt s the mse l v e s a c k no wl e dg e tha t, i fp r o pe r l y p l e d, al l eg at i o ns of vi o l at i o ns o fs ubs ta nt i ve due pr o ce ss , the l i k es of w hi chthe pl aint i ff s ha ve r ai se d, woul d a m o unt to a consti tuti onalvi ol ati on. In sum , a re aso nabl e o ffi ci al i n S e c r e t a r y R ums fe l d’ s p o s i t i o n i n 2 0 0 6 wo ul d h ave re al i zed thatthe ri ght o fa U ni ted S ta te s c itize n to be free fr o m t o r tu r e atthe ha nds o fo ne ’ s o wn go ve r nm ent was a “ cl ea r l y e st ab l i sh ed” c o ns ti tu ti o na l r i g ht and that t he te chniques al l ege d by pl ai nti ff s a dd up to to r tu r e. W e affi r m the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s dec i si o n to de ny dism i ssa l bas ed on qual i fi ed i m m unity.
C
. Bive ns Cl ai m s b y Ci vi l i an U
. S. Ci t ize ns i n a WarZone There can be no doubt thati fa fe deralo ffi ci al, ev en a m i l i tar y o ffi cer, to rtured a pri sone r i n the Unite d Sta tes , the t or ture d pri sone r cou l d sue f ordam age s under Bi ve ns . See C a rlson v. G reen , 4 46 U. S
. 1 4 ( 19 80 ) ( al l o wi ng B iven s cl ai m ag ai n st pri son offi ci al s who w er e del iber ate l y i nd i f f e r e nt t o pri sone r’ s s er i ous m edi cal n ee d s); Sa uc ier, 53 3 U.S
. 19 4 ( hol ding that m i l i tar y pol i ce officer w as en titl ed to qu ali fi ed i m m un ity on civi li an ’s B iven s cl ai m f ore x cess i ve f or ce, witho ut sugg est i ng tha tN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 43

a ny b r o a de r i mm un i t y mi ght a pp l y )
. I n thi s cas e, ho we v e r, the de fe nd a nt s a s s e r t a b r o a d i mm un i t y f ro m su it und er Bi ve ns , c l ai m i ngtha t ci vi l i anU. S
. c i ti ze ns can neve r pu rs ue a Bive ns action a g a in st an y U
. S. m i l i ta r y per so nne l i f th e co ns ti tu tional viol at i o ns occur re d i n a war z one. W e revi ew thi s quest i on o fl aw de novo
. S ee Tho m a s v. G enera l M o to rs A c c e p ta nc e C o rp ., 28 8 F .3 d 30 5, 30 7 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ); Wi l s on v. Li b b y, 53 5 F.3d 697, 704 (D.C
. Cir. 2008). The unpr ec ede nt ed br ea dtho fde fen dan ts ’ a r g um en t shoul d no t be ove rl oo ked. The defe nd ants conten d th at a B i v e ns r emedy s ho ul d no t be a va i l ab l e to U. S
. c i ti ze ns f orany const i tuti on al w ro ng, i ncl ud i ng to rture and even col d-blo od ed m urder, i fthe w ro ng o ccurs i n a war z one. The defe nd ants’ th eo ry w oul d app l y t o any s ol die r or fe d e r a l o ffi c i a l , f r o m t h e v e r y t o p o fth e c h a i n o fc o mmand t o the v e r y b o t t o m. We di s a g r e e a nd c o nc l ud e th at th e plaintiff s m ay p roceed w ith th eir B iven s cl ai m s. W e a dd re ss fi rst the natur e o fthe B iven s r emedy a nd then appl y the two- ste p proce ss the S up re m e C ourthas appli ed f ordeci din g w h en a B iven s re m edy sho uld be av aila b l e. The fi rs t ste p i s to consi der w hether ther e i s a su ffi ci en t “a l te r na ti ve r emedy ” for th e al l eg ed co ns ti tu
ti onalwrong ind i cating tha t Congr ess has i ntended to s up pla nt Bive ns . H er e there i s no m eani ngful al ternati ve, and the defe nd ants do not ar gue oth er w i se. The seco nd st ep is t o consi der whether “speci alf acto rs ” w ei gh ag ain st r eco gni ti on o fa B iven s r emedy unde r the c irc u m st an c es . In ta kin g t h is s ec on d st ep , w e e x p lain that the k ey el em ents ofpl ai nti ff s’ cl ai m s a re welles tab-44 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 li sh ed un d er Bive ns : ( a) t hat ci vi l i an cl ai m s a gainst m i li tar y per sonnelar e per m i ssibl e; (b) thatcl ai m s ba sed o n abus e o fpr isoners a r e per m i ss ibl e; ( c) tha t th e Con

st i tu ti o n g o ve r ns the r el at i o ns hip b etwee n U. S
. c i ti ze ns a n d th e i r g o v e r n me n to v e r s e a s ; a n d ( d ) th a tc l a i ms aga i nst c urr ent a nd f or m ercab i net o ffi ci al s a re per m i tted. W e th en co ncl ud e that Congr ess has not i nd i cate d any b arto cl ai m s under thes e ci rcum sta nces. In f act, Congre ss has acte d to provi de ci vi l r em edi es to a liens who ar e t or ture d by their gov er nm ents. I t would be extr aord inary to find that there i s n o suc h rem ed y for U
. S. ci t ize ns to rt u re d by t he i rown g ove r nm e nt
. I n t ak i ngthe seco nd st ep, we then weigh and rej ect the defe n dants’ ar gum ents and author i ti es offer ed to su p porta speci al rul e that w oul d i m m unize gov er nm ent offi ci al s from B iven s l i abi l i ty f orthe tor ture , o r w or se, o fa ci vil i an U
. S. ci ti zen in a war zone. Se cti on 1 o f t h e C ivilRi ghts A ct o f18 71, co difi ed as 42 U
. S. C. § 1 983, autho ri zes ci vil law sui ts aga i nst s tat e and l oca l go ver nm ent o ffi ci al s forthe depri vati on o f fede r al const i tu ti o na l a nd s ta tu to r y r i g ht s. No a na l o g o us sta tute b ro adlyautho ri zes si m i l arsui ts aga i nst federa l o ffi ci al s. The Sup rem e Cou r t r ec o g ni ze d i n Bive ns , h o weve r, thatpri vate ci ti zens have an i m p lied ri ght o f acti on di re ctl y under the Const i tuti on t o re cove r dam age s aga i nst federa l offi ci al s f or const i tuti ona l vi ol ati o ns e ve n whe r e Con g r es s ha s no t co nfer r ed su ch a r i ghtb y s ta tu te . In Bive ns , the pla i nti ffsued federa l l aw enf or cem ent a gents f orse ar chi ng his proper ty wi th o uta war r an t, us i nge xc es si ve f o r ce , and a r r es ting hi m wi th o utpr obab l e ca us e. In h o l di ngtha t Bi ve nsN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 45

Lo ng be f or e B i ve ns , fede ra l c our t s pr ovi ded r em edi es f or 12 fe d era l officials’ v iola tion s of fed era l law , an d ind iv id u als sou g ht po st- d ep riv atio n rem ed ies ag ain st fed era l officials in federal court. See Iqbal, 12 9 S. C t. a t 1 9 4 8 , cit in g , e. g. , D unl op v. M unroe, 11 U .S. ( 7 C ran ch ) 24 2, 268 ( 18 12 ) (con c l u d i ng , in case a g ain st po stm aster, th at a fed era l official’ s liab ility “wi l l onl y re s ul t f ro m hi s own ne gl ec ti n n otpr ope rl y s uper i nte n d in g th e d isc h a rg e” o f hi s su b o rd in a te s’ d u tie s); Li t t l e v. Ba r r e me, 6 U.S . ( 2 Cranch) 170, 178- 79 ( 1804) ( holding that c om m ande r of a wars hi p was “a ns werabl e i n dam age s ” t o the owner ofa ne ut ra l v essel s ei ze d purs uan tt o o rde rs fro m P re sid en t b u t in v io la tio n o f sta tu te ). was e nt itl ed t o s ue the a g en ts f o r da m ag es , the Suprem e Cour t obse rv ed that“where federa l l y pr ote c te d righ ts h a v e b e e n inv ad ed , i t h as be en th e ru le fro m the beginning that cour ts w i l l be al er t t o adj ust th eir r em edi es so as to gr ant the nece ssa ryr el i ef
. ” Bi v e ns , 403 U
. S. at 39 2, q uoti ng Bel l v. Hood, 32 7 U.S
. 67 8, 68 4 ( 1946 )
. “Hist or i cal l y, dam age s hav e be en r ega rded as th e or dinar y r em edy f oran invasi on o fp er so n ali nter est s i n l iber ty. ” Id
. at39 5. The B iven s r e med y ha s be en des i g ne d t o pr ev en t co ns ti tu ti o na l r i g ht s fro m b ec o m i ng “m er el y pr ecator y. ” D avi s v. Pas s m an , 44 2 U.S
. 22 8, 24 2 ( 19 79 ) ( ho l di ngtha t con g r es si o na l e m pl o y ee c o ul d s ue m em bero fCongr ess f or s ex di scr i m i nati on in em plo ym ent in vi ol atio n o fequalpro tect i on br anch ofFi fth A m en d m en t d ue proc ess right). 12 The Suprem e Court’ s m or e recent B iven s dec i si o ns dir ect us to e xerci se cauti on in re cogni zi ng Bive ns r em ed ies in n ew co n te x ts . B iven s do e s no t pr o vi de an “auto m ati c ent itle m en t” to a r em edy f ora const i tuti onal46 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442

S o m e m em b ers of the S u p rem e C ou rt ha v e said tha t Bive ns 13 is o u td a te d
. Wilk ie, 55 1 U .S. a t 5 6 8 (T h o m a s, J., co n cu rr in g ); C or re ct i onalSer vi ce s C orp. v. M al es ko , 534 U.S
. 61, 75 ( 2001) (Scalia, J ., con cu rrin g ) (ob serv ing tha t “ B i ven s i s a re l i c ofthe heady day s in which this Cou rtas sum ed c om m on-l aw pow ers t o c re at e c aus es ofac t i on- dec re ei ng the m t o be ‘ i m pl i ed’ by the m er e e xi ste n ce o f a st a tu to ry o r c o n sti tu tio n a l p ro h ib iti o n .”). D es p ite th is c ri tic i s m , B i ven s re m ai ns the l aw ofthe l and, an d i tr em ai ns on e vi t al way ofe ns ur ing th at fundam en t al gua ra ntees in th e B ill of R igh ts are n ot h ollo w , p reca tor y p ro m ises. Wi l ki e pro vi des a he l pful an d re c en tgui de for i t s appl i c at i on. vi o l at i o n b y a fede r alo ff ic i al, a nd “ an y fr ee st an di ng dam age s r em edy f ora cl ai m ed const i tuti onalvio l ati on has t o re prese nt a j ud gm ent about the b estway to i m ple

men ta c o ns t i t ut i o na l g ua r a nt e e . ” Wilki ev. Rob b i ns , 55 1 U
. S. 537, 55 0 ( 2007 )
. W e hav e r em i nd ed pla i nti ff s that B iven s i s no t anaut om at i c “g ap- fi l l er, a va i l ab l e wheneve r a pl ai nti ffse eks a parti cul arr em edy notpro vi ded f orbyany statu te orr egul ati on, f ora const i tuti onal vio lat ion b y fed er al off ice rs .” Rob i ns on v. Sh e r r od, 63 1 F. 3d 839, 84 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ; se e a l so U ni t e d S t at e s v. N orwood, 602 F.3d 83 0, 83 6 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ). G ive n th is h i s t o r y, a s we l l a s t he gr av i t y o fth e c l a i ms b e f o r e u s , we “pro ceed ca uti ousl y” in d ete rm i ni ng wh etherto al l ow V an ce an d Erte l to p ur s u e a c a us e of action un d er Bive ns . Se e Bagol a v. Ki ndt, 131 F.3d 632 , 638 (7th C ir. 1997). 13 The Suprem e Cour t has devel oped a tw o-step te st f or str ucturi ng j ud gm ents about w hethera parti cul ar Bi ve ns cl ai m sho uld be r eco gni zed. Fi rs t, co urts m ust consi der “ w hetherany al ternati ve, exi sting pro cess f orN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 47 prot ecting the i nter estam ou nts t o a co nvi nci ng r eas on f orthe J ud i ci alBranch t o re fra i n fro m pro vi ding a new an d free st an d in g r e m ed y in d am ag es .” Wil kie, 551 U
. S. at 550. W here Congr ess has provi ded f oran a dequ ate a l t e r na t i v e r e med y, a n i mpl i e d B iven s r e med y i s n e i the r n ec es sa ry n or av aila b le. T h e C ou rth as rea c h ed th is concl usi on in two case s where Congre ss has e stab li shed com prehensi ve and w el l

- define d civi l r em edi es: S oci al Se cur i tyb en efi ts , i n Sc hwe i ke rv. Chi l i cky, 4 8 7U. S
. 41 2 ( 19 88 ) , a nd fede r alc i vi l ser vi ce e m pl o y m en t, i n B ush v. Lu ca s , 462 U
. S. 367 (1983). I fther e i s no suffi ci ent a l ternati ve, the courts m ust proce ed to the seco nd ste p of t he B iven s tes t, as des cr ibe d i n B ush : “ th e fede r alc o ur ts mustmake th e k ind of rem ed ialde term ination th at is app rop riate f or a com m on-law tribu na l, pa ying p articu lar he ed , how ever, to any s peci alf acto rs counsel l i ng hesi tat i on bef or e a uthori zi ng a new kind o ffedera l l i ti gat i on. ” B ush , 462 U
. S. at3 78 , quo te d i n Wil kie, 55 1 U.S
. at55 0.
1. Step O ne

—A lterna tiv e R em edies The fi rs t s tep o fthe i nquir y i s t o c on si der “ w hether an y a l te r na ti ve, e xi st i ngpr o ce ss f o r pr o te ct i ngthe i n t e r e s t a mo u n t s t o a c o n v i n c i n g r e a s o n f o rt he J udi ci alBr an cht o r efr ain f r o m pr o vi di nga ne w and fre est anding re m edy i n dam age s. ” Wi l ki e, 55 1 U.S
. at 550. The sho rtanswer i s no . T h e defendants do no t s ugges t that there i s an y a l ternati ve re m edi alsche m e a t al l c o m parable t o the S o ci alS ec ur i typr o ce dur es a nd r emedi es i n Sc hw eik er orthe federa l ci vi l se rv i ce pr o-48 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442
ce dur es a nd r emedi es i n B ush
. W h il e the defendants d o n otarg u e t h at th er e is an “a lte rn at ive rem ed y,” th eir “sp ecial fa c tors” argu m en ts invite us to look m ore bro adlyf ori nd i cati ons ofCongr ess i onalin te n t a s t o w hethera Biven s a ct i o n s ho ul d b e per m i tt ed unde r the ci rcum sta nces. W e do so bel ow in our di scussi on o f
“ s pe c i a l f a c t o r s ” i n the s e c o nd s t e p. A l though the defendants do n ot a rgue thatther e i s a n “al ternati ve re m edy” forthe pla i nti ff s, an a m i cus br i ef byf o r m erS ec r etar i es o fDe fen se a nd M embe r s o fthe J oi nt Chie f s o fS taff ad dress es the i ssue. They a rgue, as defe nd ants do not, that Congr ess has cre ate d an el ab o r at e an d wel l

- st r uctur ed sc he m e for r emedi es a nd an ad m i ni str ati ve sys tem thatenco urag es detai nees to m ake co m pla i nts. These am i cisuggest thatVance and Ertelenj oye d the protec ti ons of, am ong othe rs , the Geneva C onventi ons, the Coal i ti on o fPro vi si onal A uthor i ty M em or andu m #3 , and the U ni f or m Code of M i l i tar y J usti ce. They a rgue thatthe pla i nti ff s a re not enti tl ed to pursue B iven s c laim s b e c a u se th ey co u ld h a v e t a k e n a d v a n t a g e o ft h e s e p r o t e c t i o n s b y c o mpl aini ngabo utthe i r t r ea tmenta t the t i m e o fthe i r de te nti o n. W e r espect t hese am i ciand thei r dist i ngui shed pu bl i c se rv i ce. Fo r thre e r eas ons, however, we are not persuaded by the a rg um ent that a B iven s re m ed y s h ou ld be bar re d b ecause detai nees w ho ar e bei ng to rtured m ays ubmi t a co m pl aintabo utthe i r t r ea tmentt o the v e r y p e o p l e w h o a r e r e s p o n s ib l e f o r t o r t u r i n gth e m. Fi rs t, i f, as plain tiffs al l ege her e, ther e was a probl em st re tc h in g t o th e v er y t op of th e c h ain of co m m an d , i tN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 49

T he p an el inv ited this elab or atio n on th e p lain tiffs’ 14 c om pl ai nt, as pe rm i t ted o n appe al ofa Rule 12 ( b) ( 6) dec i s i on a s l o n g a s th e e l a b o r a t i o n i s n o ti n c o n s i s t e n tw i th th e c o mplaint
. See s u pra n. 6. The fri en ds ofthe c our tr efert o the app li cable A rm y R egul ati on 190- 8, w hich st ates thati fci vili an de ta in ee s are “nots ati sfie d w ith the w ay the c om m and er ha nd les a c o m p lain t or req u est, the y m ay sub m it it in w riti ng. ” AR 19 0- 8, § 6- 9. The m at t erm u s tbe r epo rt ed up the c hai n o fc om m and, i nve s t iga ted, an d re m edi ed un der DoD D ir ect ive 5100. 77 ( D ec. 9, 1998)
. D ef
. Sec
. Am ic us B r. at 11. Th e a m i c i n ot e tha ta tthe t i m e the pl a i nt i ff s w ere de t a i ne d, ther e had b ee n m o re than 800 i nvesti gati ons by m il it ary l aw en fo rc em en t o ffici a ls o fa lle g ed d et a in ee ab u se . Id
. at 13 n. 8. W e do no tbe l i e ve tha tthi s i s the k i nd o fc ompr e he ns i ve rem edial sys te m thatw ould p rec lude a Bi ve ns r e m e dy
. App are ntly , ne ither d oe s the g ov ern m en t; its b r ief do es no t rely o n th is in te rn a l a d m in ist ra tiv e c o m p la in t sy ste m . w oul d m ake l i ttl e s ense to l im it th ei r re cour se to ma k i n gc o mp l a i n t s w i th i n th a ts a me c h a i n o fc o mma nd
. Se cond, the opportunit y to com pla i n offer s no actual re m edy to tho se in p l ai nti ff s’ posi ti on o therthan possibl y to pu t a sto p to the ongo i ng tor ture an d ab use. A sy ste m thatm i ght i m pose disc i pline o r cri m i nal pro secuti on o fthe i nd i vi du al s r espons ible f orthei r tr eat
me n td o e s n o to ffe r th e mo r e f a mi l i a r r e me dy o fd a mage s. Thi rd, duri ng o ra l ar gum en t, pla i nti ff s’ co unsel ass er ted thatVance a nd Erte l in fac t d id c o m p lain about thei r tr eat m ent whil e deta i ned. A t l east o ne o f th e me n h a d f a c e - t o - f a c e c o n v e r s a t i o n s wi th th e c o mm an dero fCa m p Cr o pper, who sa i d the r e was no th i ng he co uld do about thei r tr eat m ent. 1450 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442

Our di s s en t i ng c ol l ea gue ar gue s tha twe s houl d l ea ve the 15 qu estion of re m ed ies entirely to C on g ress. A ltho u g h w e d isag ree, f or r easo ns exp lain ed at leng th in the text, no thin g in our re as oni ng would pre ven t Congr es s f ro m addre s s ing the p ro b lem s posed here with a s tatutory sol ution. The Bi ve ns l i ne of c as es s hows that when Congr es s ha s ac t ed t o a ddre s s the relev an t con text, as in Soc ia l S e c u rity an d civ il service cases, courts have been m o re than w il li ng to def er t o congres si onal solu tion s. The adm i ni str ati ve re m edy o fin viting detainees to co m pl ain ab o ut th ei r tr ea tment i s al so no th i ng li ke the al te r na ti ve r emed ies tha t th e S upr eme Co ur t ha s f o und to precl ud e Bive ns r emedi es i n Sc hw eik era nd B ush
. T h o s e e l ab o r a t e a n d c o mp r e h e n s i v e r e me d i a l s y s t e ms provi ded m eani ngful safegua rd s a nd r em edi es est abl i shed by Congre ss f orvi cti m s o fo ffi ci alwr ongd oi ng. Se e Sc hw eik er, 487U .S. at 4 25 . T h e s itu at ion be for e u s is very d ifferent: Con g ress ha s not given civi li an U
. S. ci ti ze ns c lai m ing to r tu r e byU. S
. o ffi ci al s i n a warz o ne an yt h in g like th e “ fre q u en t a n d int en se ” a tt e n t i o n it has g i ven the S oci al Se curi ty sys tem and dis abi l i ty re vie w . Id
. I th a s n o tp r o v i d e d th e s e p l a i n t i ff s a n y r e medy. A s we have concl ud ed i n otherBiv e ns cas es , “ wi th o ut an expli ci t i nd i cati on fro m Congre ss, we w i l l notf or ecl ose thi s rig h t w hen the sta tutory r em edy i s wholly inadeq u at e.” Ba gola , 1 31 F
. 3d at6 45
. Her e, the r e i s no s tatu tory re m edy atal l
. W e m ust pro ceed t o ste p tw o ofthe Bive ns i nquir y. 15N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 51 2. St ep Two

—“ Sp ecia l Fa cto rs” The seco nd st ep ofthe B iven s i nqui r y i s to m ake “ th e ki nd o fr em edi aldeter m i nati on that i s a p p ropri ate f o r a c o mm o n- l a w t r i bun a l, p a y i ngp a r t i c ul a rh e e d, h owever, to any speci alf acto rs co unsel l i ng hes i tat i on bef or e authori zi ng a new kind o ffedera l l i ti gat i on. ” B ush , 46 2 U. S
. a t 37 8, quo te d i n Wil kie, 5 5 1 U
. S
. a t55 0
. We mu s tb e c a u t i o u s i n addr e s s i n gth e qu e s t i o n, b u twe c a n dr a w s o un d gui da nc e fr o m m a nyp r e c e de nt s a ddr es singc l o se l y r el at ed pr o blem s. I n co ns i der i ng thi s s pe c i a l f a c t o r s a na l y s i s , we no t e fi r s t the b r e a dth of th e pr o po se d de fen se a nd the na r r o wnes s o fthe ass er ted cl ai m . W e then tur n to the B iven s prece dents d ea lin g w ith civ ilian cla im s a ga in st m ilita ry p er so n n el, th o se de al i ngwi th c lai m s o fabus e o fpr i so ne r s, a nd th enthe mor e g en er alpri nci pl es tha t appl y t o the Bi l l o fRi g ht s o ut si de o fUni ted States t er r i to r y . W e co nsi der then the prece dents and ar gu m en ts re l i ed upon bythe de fen dan ts , i nc l udi ngthe i r i nv i ta ti o n t o c o nsi der Congr ess i onali ntent i n thi s a re a.

a. The Scope of the D ef ens e and the Claim T h e d efe n d an ts ’ p rin c ip al Bive ns argum ent i s that, because thi s ca se ar ose i n a fo rei gn war zo ne, no Bive ns c laim s h o u ld be rec og n ize d . Th is s w ee p in g d efe n se is propos ed agai nst a f ai rl y nar ro w cl ai m . The defendants a r e a r g u i n gf o r a t r u l y u n p r e c e d e n t e d d e g r e e o fi mm unity fro m li abi l i ty f orgr ave const i tuti onalwrongs com m itted against U
. S. citi z e n s . Th e d efense theory52 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442

W e ho p e tha t the serio u s claim s be fore u s a r e t r u l y un u sua l, 16 butthe defen s e the or y i s ofpar t i c ul ar c onc er n be cause ofour nati on’ s in cr ea se d reli ance on c ivil ian c ontract ors in m od ern w ar z on es. A m ajor ity o f ou r n a t i o n ’ s w artim e p resen ce in Iraq an d A fgh an istan h as b een m ad e u p of pr iv ate co ntr acto rs. The Cong re s s i ona l R esea rc h S er vi c e re por t ed that, as of M ar c h 2 01 1, the Depar t m en tofDefen s e had m or e c ont ra c t or p erso nn el (155,00 0) than un iform ed p erso nn el ( 14 5,000 ) in Iraq and Afghanis tan . In Iraq, as of M arch 20 1 1 , th ere w ere 6 4,253 D efense D ep artm en t con tracto rs an d 45,66 0 u nif or m ed pers onn eli n the c ount ry . Se e “Depa rt m en tof Defen s e Contra ct or s i n Af gha ni s t an and I ra q: Bac kgr ound a nd A nalysi s, ” M oshe Schw art z and Joyprad a Sw ain, Cong res si onal R es ea rc h Se rv ic e (M a y 13 , 20 1 1 ). woul d i m m uni ze no t o nl y t he S ec r et ar y o fDe fen se b ut al l pe r so nne l who a ctua l l y c ar r i ed o uto r der s to t o rtu re a ci vi l i an U
. S. ci ti zen. The theo ryw ou l d i m m unize eve ryenl i ste d sol die r i n the w ar zo ne and eve ryo ffi cer i n b e t we e n. Th e de fe ns e the o r y wo ul d i mm un i z e t hem fro m civi l l i ab i l i t y f o r de l ib e r a t e t o r t ur e a nd e v e n c o l dbl oo ded m urder of c ivili an U
. S. ci ti zens. The U ni ted St ate s co urts , and the enti re U ni ted S tat es gov er nm en t, have neverbefor e thought that s u c h i m m unity i s nee ded f orthe m i l i tar y t o car ryo ut i ts m i ssi ons. 16 I n ass er ti ng thi s br oad defense, defend ants have al so soughtto br oaden pl ai nti ff s’ cla i m s be yond tho se th eya r e ac tu al l y a ss er ting . Co nt r ar y t o the de fen se a r g um ents, pl ai nti ff s a re nota ss er ting a bro ad chal l enge to the det enti on o r i nter rogati on pol i ci es ofthe U ni ted St ate s m i l i tary. Pl ai nti ff s a sse rtthatthei r tr eat m ent wasN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 53 actual l y c ontr ar y t o explic it sta tutory l aw and sta ted m i l i tar y pol i cy, bec ause they cl ai m theywere su b j ec ted to i nter ro gat ion techni ques thatwere not author i zed by the a pp l i cabl e Arm y F i el d M anual
. Thi s c as e, i n other w ords, does noti nvi te a br oad debat e o verappropr i ate d eten tion an d i nt errog a t ion tech niq ue s in ti m e of w ar. I t pr ese nts f act u al i ssues o verwh etherther e was a del iber ate deci si on t o vi ol ate the U
. S. C onst i tuti on a nd o ther app l i cabl e l aw s a nd , i fso , wh o w as re sponsibl e forthat deci si on. W i th the br oad sc ope o fthe propos ed defe n se and the nar ro w f ocus o f t h e a sse rt ed cl ai m , we turn t o prece dent f orgui dance.
b
. P r e c e d e n t s S u p p o r t i n gP l a i n t i f f s ’C l a i ms The key e lem ents ofpl ai nti ff s’ cl ai m s forco nsti tuti onal w ro ngs c om m i tte d by m i l i tary offi ci al s a re al l f am i l i ar i n B iven s j u r i s p r u d e n c e , a n d n o th i n g ab o u t th e i r c l a i ms wo ul d e xt e nd B iven s beyo nd i ts “c or e prem i se, ” which is “ t h e d et er re n c e o f ind ivid u al off ice rs w h o c om m it unconsti tuti onalact s. ” Corre ct i onal Se r vic e s Corp. v. M al e s ko , 5 34 U. S
. 6 1, 7 1 ( 20 01 ). Tha t po i ntdo es no t en d th e “s pec i alf ac to r s” de ba te, b ut it pr o vi des a us eful sta rt i ng poi nt. Fi rs t, o fco urse , i t i s wel l es tabl i shed that B iven s is avai l abl e t o pri sone rs wh o ass er t that they ha ve been ab us ed o r mis tr ea te d b y the i r fede r alj ai l o r s. In Carl s on , 446 U
. S. 14, th e Sup rem e C ou r t reversed dism issal of a com pla i nt i n w hi ch a deceased pri sone r’ s r epres entativ e su ed f orvi ol ati on o fthe Eighth A m endm ent pr ohibi ti on o n cr uel and unusual pu ni shm en t, i n that case54 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 thro ugh an al l ege d deliber at e deni alo fneeded m edi cal car e. S i nce Carl s on , w e hav e regularly al low ed prison ers to p ursue thei r const i tuti onal chal l enges ag ai nst fed er alpri son offi ci al s a s Bive ns cla im s. Se e, e . g. , Bag ol a , 13 1 F .3d 63 2 (c on c lu d in g t h at d ist ric t c ou rtp ro p er ly he a r d Bive ns c l a i m a l l e g i ngi nj ur y a s p a r to fp r i son w or k prog ra m wh er e work er s’ co m pensati on pro gr am did notpro vi de adequate s afeguar ds to pro tectp ri son er ’s E igh th A m en d m en t rig h ts ); D el R a ine v . Willifo rd, 32 F.3d 10 24 (7th C ir. 1994) (recognizing p rison e r’s B i ven s cl ai m al l eging tha t he w as f or ced to l i ve in b i t t e r l y c o l d c e l l )
. T h e f a c ttha tth e p l a i n t i ff s w e r e i mpr i so ne d whi le n o t ev enc ha r g ed wi th, l eta l o ne convi cted o f, any cri m e o nl y t ends to em phasi ze how f am i l i arthi s a spect ofthei r cl ai m i s. Secon d , i t is also w ellestablished un d er B iven s that c ivilia n s m ay su e m ilita ry p er so n n el w h o vio l a t e th eir c on st itu tio n al rig h ts . For e x am p le, Sa uc ier v. Katz , 53 3 U. S
. 1 9 4 , a n i mp o r t a n tb u tn o w o v e r r ul e d qu a l i fi e d i mm unity c ase , was a F ourth A m en d m ent e xcessi ve force clai m by a civi lia n against a m il itary police offi cer. Th e r e wa s n o s u g g e s t i o n th a t th e c i v i l i a n c o u l d n o ts ue the m i l i tary p ol i ce o ffi cer . Ci rcui t co urts have al so d ecid ed a nu m ber of B iven s ca se s bro ug htb y c i vi l i an s ag a i n st m ilita ry p er so n n el. Se e, e . g. , Casev. M i l e wski, 32 7 F.3d 564 ( 7th Cir. 2003) (ci vil ian claim against m il itary officers f or Fourth and Fi fth A m en d m en t viol ations); M o rga n v . U nited Sta tes , 32 3 F
. 3d 776 ( 9th Ci r. 20 03) ( ci vi l i an cl ai m a g ains t m i l i ta r y po l i ce f o r s ea r cho fv eh icl e); Rom an v. Towns e nd, 22 4 F
. 3d 24 ( 1stCi r. 2 000) ( ci vi l i an cl ai m a g ains t m i l i ta r y po l i ce o ffi ce r a nd S ec r et ar y of th eN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 55

W e ar e notp er s uade d by the defen dant s ’ r el i anc e on C h a p p ell 17 v. Wal l ace, 4 6 2 U. S
. 296 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , a nd U n i te d S tat es v. Stan l ey, 483 U.S. 669 ( 1987) , two case s in which t h e S up rem e Court appl i ed the “s pec i al f ac t or s ” a nal y sis t o h ol d thaton e m em b er ofthe U.S. Arm ed Forces could not s ue another m em ber ofthe Arm ed Forces und er Bi ve ns . Both de c i s ions we re bas ed o n the uni que di s c i pl i nar y s t ru c t ur e withi n the m il it ary. N ei ther cas e provides a basi s f or rej ecti n g a Bi ve ns claim b y a civ ilian a g ain st a m ilitary official. A rm y for im p rop er arres t a n d treatm en t in det en tion); A pp le w h it e v. U nite d State s A irForce, 99 5 F
. 2d 997 ( 10th C ir. 1993) (ci vil ia n clai m against m il itary inv estigators for un law ful search and rem oval from m il itary base); see al so Wil ls on v. C agle, 711 F. S u p p . 1 52 1, 15 26 (N .D . C al. 1988 ) ( concl ud i ng th at “a Bive ns ac tio n m ay p ot en tia lly l i e a gainst m i l i tar y o ffi cer s a nd ci vi lian e m plo yee s o f th e m ilita ry ” fo r p ro te st er s inj u re d w h en a m ilita ry m u n it ion s t ra inco llid ed w ith th em ), a f f ’ d me m. , 90 0 F
. 2d 263 (9th C ir. 1990) ( affi rm ing d en ialof qu ali fi ed i m m un ity); B a rrett v. U nited S t a tes , 62 2 F
. S up p. 574 ( S. D.N.Y. 19 85) ( al l owing ci vi l i an’ s Bive ns cl ai m to pro ceed ag ai n st m i l itary offi ci al s forthei r al l ege d conceal m ent o f thei r ro l e in the cre ati on a nd a dm i ni str ati on o fan ar m y c hem i calwarf ar e experi m ent in w hi ch herf ather u n kn ow in gly se rv ed as a te st s u b jec t), aff’d, 79 8 F
. 2d 565 ( 2d Cir
. 19 86)
. W hi l e s uch cl ai m s o ften f ail on the m er i ts o r f o r o the r r e a s o ns , the f ac ttha ta c i v i l i a n ha s s ue d a m i l i tar y o ffi ci ali s no t a bas i s fordenyin g rel i efunder Bive ns . 1756 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 Thir d, w hen ci vi l i an U
. S. ci ti zens l eave the U ni ted St ate s, theyta ke w i th them thei r const i tuti onal ri ghts that p r o t e c t th e m fr o m th e i r o wn g o v e r n me n t . I n Rei d v
. C o vert, 35 4 U.S
. 1 ( 1957 ) , the Suprem e C ou rthel d that ci vi l i an m em ber s of m i l i tar y f am i l i es coul d no t be tri ed i n cour ts- m ar ti al
. J usti ce Bl ack w ro te f ora plur al i ty of f our J usti ces: At the b eg i nn ing we r ej ec t th e i dea tha t when th e Uni t e d S t a t e s a c t s a g a i ns tc i ti z e ns ab r o a d i tc a n do so fr ee o fthe Bi l l o fRi g ht s. The Un ite d S ta te s i s en ti r ely a c r ea tu r e o fthe Const ituti o n. I ts po wera nd au th or ity h av e n o ot h e r so u rc e. It ca n on ly a c t in ac co r dan ce wi tha l l the l i m i ta ti o ns i m po se d b y the Consti tuti on. W hen the G ov er nm ent r eaches o ut to puni sha c i ti ze n who i s a br o ad, the s hi el d whi chthe Bil l of Rights and o ther parts of th e C onst i tuti on provi de to pro tecthi s l i fe a nd l iber ty shoul d not b e s tr ip p ed aw ay j u st be c au se h e h ap p en s t o b e in an o th erl an d. Thi s i s no t a no velc o nc ept . To the contr ar y, i t i s a s o l d as g ove rnm ent. Id
. at 5
- 6. The ge nera l pro posi ti on r em ai ns vi tal, as r ec en tly r ea ffi r m ed i n Boum e di e ne, ho l di ngtha t al i en s he l d a s co m ba ta nt s atGua nt an amo Baymay i nv o k e th e wri t o f habe as co r pus to ch al l en g e th ei r det ent i o n: “Even w hen the U ni ted S tat es acts o utsi de its bor ders, its p ow ers are not ‘absolute an d un li m ited’ b u t a re su bj ec t ‘ to s uchr es tr i ct i o ns a s ar e e xp ress ed i n the Co nsti tuti on. ’ ” 5 53 U
. S. at76 5, quoting M urp h y v . Ra m sey, 114 U
. S. 15 , 44 ( 1885 ) ; see al so M una f , 55 3 U.S
. at 688 (ho lding th at civil ian U
. S. citi zen s held i n U
. S.N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 57

m ilita ry cu st od y in Iraqco u ld se ek p et itio n f o r t h e w rit of h ab ea s c or p u s in fed er al d ist ric t c ou rt ). C f. U n ited S ta tes v. Verd ug o -U rquid ez , 4 9 4 U
. S. 25 9 ( 1990 ) ( hol ding that non- re si dent al i en co uld noti nvoke Fo u rt h A m en d m en t t o c h alle n ge se ar c h by U .S. officia ls in forei gn cou nt ry). F o ur th, de fen dan t R um sfel d i s be i ngs ue d f o r a ct i o ns tak en and deci si ons m ade w h ile ser vi ng atthe hi ghest l e v e l s o f th e Un i t e d S t a t e s g o v e r n me n t . We e x p r e ss no vi ew atthi s s tag e a s to w hetherpl ai nti ff s ca n prov e th ei r f ac tu ala l l eg at i o ns . The f o r m err an ko fthe defen dan t, ho wev er, i s no t a ba si s f o r r ej ec tingthe pl aintiffs’ c la im s. T he Sup rem e C ou rt has repe ated ly en tert a i ne d Bive ns act i ons aga i nst o thercab i net m em ber s. Se e, e . g. , M it chel l v. F o rsyth , 4 72 U. S
. 5 11 ( 19 85 ) ( ho l di ng th a tA t t o r n e y G e n e r a l w a s e n t i t l e d t o qu a l i fi e d i mm u n it y , n otab so lu te im m u n ity , from d am ag es su it arisi ng out of n a t ional secu rity- related actions); Har l ow v. Fitzgerald, 45 7 U.S
. at81 8 ( c oncl ud i ng tha t s eni or ai des and advi sor s o fthe Pre sident o fthe U ni ted S tat es m ay be e nti tled to qual i fi ed i m m unity fro m l i abi l i ty w hen th eir cond uct “doe s no t v i ol ate cl ear l y e stabl i shed st at u to ry or c on st itu ti o n a l r igh ts of w h ich a re as on ab le p erson w ou ld h ave kn ow n” ); Ha lper in v . Kissin ger, 60 6 F. 2d 1192 ( D.C. Ci r. 19 79) ( concl ud i ng t h at seni or Exe cut i ve Br an cho ffi ci al s, i nc l udi nga f o r m erpr es i den t of the Uni t e d S t a t e s , we r e no t ab s o l ut e l y i mm un e f ro m su i tf o r da mag e s b y c i t i z e n a l l e g i nga n un c o ns t i t ut i o nal wi r e t a p) , aff’d in pertin ent p a rt, 452 U .S. 71 3 ( 1981 ) ; Bu tz v. Econ om ou , 43 8 U.S
. 4 78 ( 1978 ) ( concl ud i ng tha t fede r al o ffi ci al s i n th e Exe cut i ve Br an ch, i nc l udi ngthe58 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 Se cre tar y o fA gr i cul ture , o rd in ar i l y m ay be e nti tl ed to qua l i fi ed i m m uni ty, no t ab so l ut e i m m uni ty, fr o m c o nstitut ional cl aim s).

c. The D e

f e ns e Arg um e nts and Pre ce de nts f or Sp ecia l Fa cto rs Al th o u g h th e p r i n c i p a l e l e me n t s o fp l a i n t i ff s ’ c l a i ms are fam il iar asp ects of B iven s j urisp rud en ce, the claim s are ch all en ging bec au se th ey arose in a U
. S. m il itary pri son i n I ra q duri ng a ti m e o fwar. A s the def en dants ac k no wl edg ed ato r ala r g um en t, ho wev er, ne ither th e Suprem e Cour t no r any o therfedera l ci rcui t co urt has ev erdeni ed ci vi l i an U
. S. ci ti zens a ci vi l r em edy f orthei r al l ege d tor ture byU
. S. go ver nm ent o ffi ci al s.
i. M il it ary Affairs and N ational Se curi ty The d efendants’ ar gum ent that the co urts sho uld s tay o uto fmil i ta r y a ff air s r es ts o n the a ss um pti o n tha t th e p lai nt iffs are m ou nt ing a broad cha ll en ge to U
. S. m i l i tar y a n d d ete nti on pol i cy, r ai si ng i ssues o fnati onal se c u r ity and even f oreign relati ons . I f p lai nt iffs w ere ac tu al l y s ee k i nga gener alr ev i ew o f“ m i l i ta r y a ct i o ns an d p olic ies ,” as th e d efe n se su gg es ts , t h i s c as e w ou ld p resen t d iffe r e n t i ssu es. T ha t is not w ha t plaintiff s se ek
. The y a r e no t ch al l en g i ngmil i ta r y po l i cy m aking and procedure ge nerally, noran o ngoing m i l i tar y a cti on. They c hal l enge onl y th ei r parti cul arto rture at th e han d s and direction of U
. S. m il itary offi cials, cont rary to st atuto rypro vi si ons and stat ed m i l i tar y pol i cy, asN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 59

w el l as the Consti tuti on. A l l owing B iven s liab ility in these unusual ci rcum sta nces w oul d not m ake co urts , as d efend an ts su ggest, “the ultim ate arbit e r s of U
. S. m ilita ry or for eig n p olic y.” W e ar e sen si ti ve t o the de fen dan ts ’ c o nc erns tha t th e j udi ci ar y s ho ul d no t i nt er fer e wi thmil i ta r y de ci si o nm ak i ng . T h e “ C on st itu ti o n r ec og n ize s t h at co re st ra te gic m at te rs of w ar m ak in g” res t w ith th e E x ec u tiv e. Ham di, 5 4 2 U. S
. a t5 3 1
. B u ti ti s e q u a l l y c l e a r th a t“ [ w]h i l e we ac co r d the g r ea te str es pec t an d c o ns i der at i o n t o the j ud gm ents ofm i l i tar y a uthor i ti es i n m at te rs r el ating to th e ac tu alpr o se cuti on of a war, a nd r ec o g ni ze tha t th e sco pe ofthatdi scr eti on nece ssa ri l y i s wide, i t does not i nfr i nge o n the cor e r ol e o fthe m i l i tar y forthe cour ts to ex er c ise th eir ow n t im e-h on or ed an d co n st itu tio n ally m andated ro l es ofr ev iewing and res ol vi ng cl ai m s. ” Id
. at 535; se e a l so E x parteQ uir in , 31 7 U.S
. 1 , 1 9 (1 942) ( acknowle dgi ng tha t “ the duty w hi ch r est s o n the cour ts, i n ti m e o f w ar a s w ellas i n ti m e o fpeace , [ i s] to prese rv e uni m pai re d the co nsti tuti onalsa feguar ds of ci vi l l iber ty” )
. Reco gni zi ng t h e plai nti ff s’ cl ai m s for such gr ave

— and, we tr ust, such r ar e

— co n st i tuti onal w ro n gs by m ili t a r y offic ials , in a law su it t o b e h ea rd w ell afterthe f act, sho uld noti m p in ge i napp ro pri ate l y o n m i l i tar y deci si on- m aking. The de fendan ts r ai se the c o nc ern tha t l i ti g at i o n o fthe pla i nti ff s’ cl ai m s “ w oul d i nevi tabl y r equire j ud i ci al i ntrusi on into m att er s o fnati onalse curi ty. ” S ee Wi l s on , 535 F. 3d a t 710. Thi s m ay be a se ri ous c oncern, but at a ver y pr agm ati c l eve l, the f act th at cla ssi fi ed i nfo rm a-60 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 ti o n ( fr o m y ea r s ag o ) mightbe im p l i ca te d a t so m e po i nt in this li tigation is not a b ar to all ow ing it to go f orw ard at thi s s tag e. I fcl ass i fi ed i nfo rm atio n becom es a p r o bl em, th e l a w p r o v i d e s t o o l s t o d e a l wi th i t . As J udg e Cal ab r es i e xpl aine d i n A rar v. A shcroft, th e s ta tesecr ets pri vi l ege i s the app ro pri ate to olbywh i ch sta te secret s a re pro tect ed: “Denyi ng a Bive ns r e med y because st ate se cre ts m i ght be re veal ed i s a bi t l i ke denyi ng a cri m i nal tri alf orfearthata j urorm i ght b e i nti m i dated : it allo w s a r i sk, thatthe l aw i s a l re ady at gr eatpai ns to el i m i nate, to nega te enti rel y s ubstanti al rig h ts an d p ro c ed u re s. ” 5 85 F.3d at63 5 (C ala b re si, J., di ss en ting )
. As the maj o r i tyi n A rar a c k no wl e dg e d, “c o ur ts c an

— with di ffi cul ty and res ourc efulne ss

— consi der s tat e s ecr ets and eve n re exam i ne j ud gm ents m ade i n the f or ei gn a ffair s co ntext w hen they m ust, that i s, wh en the re is a n u nfl agg i ng duty t o exer ci se our j uri sdict i on. ” Id. at 575- 76. Fe aro fthe j ud i ci ar y “ i ntrudi ng” i nto nati onalse c uri ty shoul d not pre vent us fro m r eco gni zi ng a re m edy atthi s s tag e, i n thi s ca se. Courts re vi ew i ng claim s o fto rture i n vi ol ati on o f st at u te s s u c h as th e D et ain ee T re at m en t A c t o r in vi ol ati on o ft h e F i fth A m endm ent do not endanger th e s e p a r a t i o n o fp o we r s , b u ti n s t e a d r e i n f o r c e th e c o mple m entar y r ol es pla yed bythe th re e branches o f our gov er nm ent. S ee , e . g. , Boum e di e ne, 55 3 U.S
. at74 2 ( “The Fr am er s’ i nherentdi str ust o fgo ver nm entalpow er w as the dr i vi ng f or ce b ehi nd the const i tuti onalpl an th ata l l o ca te d po w ers am ong thr ee i nde pen den t br an ch es . T his des i g n s er ve s no t o nl y t o make Go ve r nm en t acco un table bu t also to secu re ind ivi d ua l liberty.”);N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 61
see al so Ham di, 54 2 U.S
. a t 536-3 7 ( em phasi zi ng, with res p ect to ch all en ges to th e factu al basis ofa citi zen ’s det en ti o n, that “i t woul d tur n o urs y st em o fc he ck s an d bal ances on i ts head to sugg estt h at a ci ti zen co uld not m ak e h is w ay to co u rtw ith a c h al l e n g e t o . . . his det en ti o n b y hi s Gov ernm en t, s i m pl y b ec au se the Exe cuti ve o ppo se s m ak i nga va i l ab l e su cha c ha l l en g e” )
. The d efe n d an ts ’ b ro ad ar gu m en t th at th e j u d icia r y sh ou ld st ay o u t o f all m at te rs im p lica tin g n at ion al s ec u rit y is too br oad to be convi nci ng. Ourdiss en tingc o l l ea g ue s ug g es ts tha t “g i ve n the signifi can t pitfall s of j ud ici al e n t an glem en t in m il itary deci si onm akin g, i t m ust be Congr ess , notthe cour ts, th ate xt en ds th e r emedy a nd d efi ne s i ts l i m i ts . ” Di ss en t at 88. W e resp ectfu ll y d isagree. A s the Sup rem e C ou rt sa i d i n Ham di : “ Wha t e v e r p o we r th e Un i t e d S t a t e s C o nstit u tion envi si ons f orthe Ex ecuti ve . . . i n ti m es of c on flict, i t m os t a ss u re d ly en vis ion s a role for a ll th re e b ra n c h es w h en ind ivid u al lib er tie s a r e a t s ta ke .” 542 U
. S. at53 6. R ecen t hab e a s c orp us cases reinforce ou r un d ersta nd in g th at federa l co urts have a ro l e t o pla y in safegu ard i ngc i ti ze ns ’ r i g ht s, e ve n in t i m es o fwar . The Ham di Court, exam i ni ng a c laim byan Am er i can ci ti zen detai ned on U
. S. so i l as an e nem y c om batan t, hel d that th e d et a i n e e w as en tit led to co n te st th e b as is for h is d eten tion. “W ha t are the allow able li m it s of m il itary d iscretion, an d w he th er or not th ey ha ve bee n ov erst ep p ed in a p ar t i c u lar ca se , are j u d icia l qu es tio n s.” Ham di, 54 2 U.S
. at53 5, quoti ng Ste rl ing v. Co nst antin , 28 7 U
. S. 378, 401 (1932 ).62 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442

T h e d efe n d a n ts su g g es t t h a t “ it i s te lli n g ” th a t th e p la in tiffs 18 re l y onh ab eas c or pus c as es r athe r thanc as es pe rm i t t i ng Bi ve ns c l ai m s i n the c ont ex tofr eview i ng m i l i t ar y a c t i ons an d pol i c i es , be c aus e habe as i s a re m edy author i ze d by s t atut e and the Co nst itution wh il e Bi ve ns i s m erel y a j ud ic ial ly- cre ated re m e dy f or da m a ge s , wi th wha t the de fe ns e a r gu e s i s a pres um pt i on aga i ns tr ec ogni zi ng c l ai m s i n n ew c ont ex t s . The a r g u me n t i s n o t p e r s u a s i v e . T h o s e c a s e s a l s o i n v o l v e s o me j udi c i al i nqu i ry i nt o m at t er s affec t i ng natio nal s ec ur i t y a nd m ili t a r y ac tiv ity
. Hamdi, M unaf , a nd Boume di e nethus wei gh ag ain st t h e a rg u m en t that th e cou rts m u st si m p ly d efer to ex ec u tiv e a u th o ri tie s in a c a se in v o lv in g al l e g e d to rt u re o f a U. S. c i t i ze n i n U. S. m i l i t ar y c us t ody. T h e M unaf Co ur tl a t e r ma de c l e a r tha tthe h abeas sta tute “exte nd s t o A m er i can ci ti zens hel d over se as by Am e r i c a n f o r c e s . ” M un af , 55 3 U.S
. at68 0. Thus, co urts m ay en force the h abea s ri gh ts of U
. S. c iti zen s in U
. S. m il it ar y c us to dy i n I r aq, tho ug h in M unaf i t s e l f, r e l i ef w as d en ied be c au se Ir a q h ad a so ve re ign righ t t o c rim in ally p ro se c u te th e p et itio n er s. Id
. at69 4- 95. M o str ec en tly, i n Boum e di e ne, t h e Sup rem e C ou rt hel d that a l i ens deta i ned as e nem y c om bata nts a t Gu antanam o Bay w er e enti tl ed to see k a w ri t o f habeas c o r pus t o c ha l l en g e th ei r de te nt i o n a nd tha t th e D etaine e Tre at m en t Act r ev i ew proc ed ure s w ere a n i na de qu a t e a l t e r na t i v e t o h ab e a s c o r pu s. 55 3 U
. S. at 795. Thi s l i ne ofcas es und er m i nes the defendants’ bro ad i nsi ste nce t hat the j ud i ci ar y m ust s tayo ut o f al l m att er s concerni ng w ar ti m e detenti on and i nter ro gati on i ssues . 18N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 63

T h is is not to s ay that w e think thatci ti zenshi p should b e a 19 d ispo sitive facto r in all B i ven s cas es i m plic ati ng national se curi ty. Bu t as w e ex p la in, i n the contex t ofthi s parti cular s etoff ac ts a nd al l eg at i ons , U. S. c i t i ze ns hi p or pe rm ane nt re s i dental i ens t atus c ouns el s i n f avorofr eco gni zi ng a jud icial rem ed y ag ain st fe d e r a l officials ev en ifthe re sult m ight be d ifferentf or an al ie n’ s si m il ar c lai m . Such an ali en c ould hav e hi s ow n gov ernm ent int ervene t o protect his ri ghts, a n d such cl aim s could im plic ate f orei gn af f air s an d d ip lom acy in a w ay tha t this case d oe s no t. The f act that the pl ai nti ff s a re U
. S. ci ti zens i s a ke y consi derat i on her e a s we w ei gh wh ethera Bi ve ns ac ti o n may pr o ce ed. A s th e Cou r t i n R ei d c o nc l ud e d: 19 “W he n the Go v e r nme ntr e a c he s o utt o p un i s h a c i t i zen who i s ab r o ad, the s hi el d whi chthe Bi l l o fRi g ht s an d ot h er p ar ts of th e C on st it u t ion p ro vid e t o p ro te c t h is l i fe a nd l iber ty shoul d n ot be s tr i pp ed away j ust be cause he happens to be i n another l and.” R ei d, 35 4 U.S
. at6 ( plur al i ty opi ni on of Blac k, J
. ) ; se e a l so Kar v. Rum sf el d, 58 0 F. Su p p. 2d 80 , 83 ( D.D. C. 2008 ) ( fi nd i ng tha t the “F ourth an d F i fthAm en dm en ts cer ta i nl y pr o te ctU. S
. c i ti ze ns d etaine d i n th e cou rse of hos til iti es in I raq ”). The defe nd ants ci te a num bero fcases , both hab eas c o r pu s a nd B iven s ca se s, f o r the pr o po si ti o n tha t th e j u d icia ry sh ou ld n otcr ea te d am ag es rem e d i es in th e con tex t of fo r eign affai rs. A lm ost allof th ese w ere sui ts by al i ens, notU
. S. ci ti zens, detained and suspected o ft e r r o r i s m t i e s . F o r e xa mpl e , the de fe nd a nt s c i te Arar v. A shcroft, w h er e t h e s h ar p ly d ivid ed Sec on d C irc u it decl i ned to re cogni ze an al i en’ s Bive ns c l a i m f o r “ extr a-64 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442

O ur diss entin g coll eague contends that r ecognizi ng a Bi ve ns 20 claim her e “v au lts ov er th is con sensu s” an d “to o-casu ally s i des t eps the wei ghtofpr ec ede ntfro m othe r c i rc ui t s . ” Di s s en t at 82, 88. T here is in f actn o such consens us to vau ltover, nor a
“ c asu al sid estep .” Th ere is no circu it cou rt d ecision w ith w hich w e dis a g re e. The t w o ci rcui ts w e have ci ted add res se d th e v er y d if f e r e n t sit u a tio n o f al ie n d et a in ee s. T h e p la in tiffs he re ar e U. S. c i t i ze ns e nt i t l ed to the ful l pr ot ec t i on ofour Cons t i t ut i on. or dinar y r endit i on” because se ver alr el ate d “speci al f ac to r s” c o uns el ed he si ta ti o n. 5 85 F
. 3d at5 75
- 81
. The pl aint i ffi n A r arwas an al i en with Sy ri an and Canadian ci ti zenshi p w ho chal l enged an al leg ed U
. S. pre si denti al policy al l owing extr aor dinar y r endit i on a nd to rture by f o r ei g n g o ve r nm en ts . The maj o r i tyfou nd tha t al l o wi ng the a l i en pl ai nti ffto p ro c ee d with a Bive ns cla im “w ou ld have the natura l tendency to affect dipl om acy, f or ei gn pol i cy, a nd the s e c ur i t y o fthe n a t i o n, a nd tha tf a ct counsel s hes itati on. ” Id. a t5 74
. Mo r e r e c e nt l y, the D. C. Cir cui t hel d that Afghan and I ra qi ci ti zens w ho a l l ege d that they w er e t or ture d i n U .S. c ustody i n thos e nations co uld notpursue B iven s c laim s a ga in st U .S. offic ials , in c lu d in g Se c r e t ar y R u m sfe ld
. A liv. Rum sf el d,

___ F.3d ___, 2011 W L 24628 51 (D.C
. Cir. J un e 21, 2011 ). 20 W e are full y aw are th at p rohibitions again s t to rtu re ar e m att er s o fi nter nati onall aw as wellas U ni ted S tat es l aw, a nd tha t th o se pr o hibi ti o ns refle ctb as i c an d u n i v e r s a l h u ma n r i g h t s . T h e qu es t i o n o fr e me d i e s , h o weve r, has m or e r oo m f ornuance, and the Se cond Cir cu it m aj o r i tyi n A rar was c onc erne d i n l ar g e par t ab o uttheN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 65 di pl o m at i c an d f o r ei g n p ol i cyc o ns eque nc es o fhe ar i ng A ra r’ s cl aim s. 585 F. 3d at 574; see al so Ar ar, 58 5 F
. 3d at 60 3 (S ac k, J., co n c u rrin g in p a r t a n d d iss en tin g in par t) ( co nc l udi ngtha t se cur i tya nd s ec r ec y c o ncerns sh o ul d no t be c o ns i dered “s pec i alf ac to r s co uns el i ng hesi tat i on, ” but sh oul d be deal t with on a cas e-by- case bas is em p loyi ng the sta te-s ecrets doc trine). I f th e U
. S. gov er nm ent har m s ci ti zens ofo thernati ons, theycan tu rn to th eir h om e g o v er n m en ts to st an d u p for th eir rig h ts . Th es e c on sid er at ion s a re sim p ly n otp re se n t in th is law su it b y t w o U .S. citiz en s c h alle n g i n g t h eir al l ege d i l l ega l to rture by thei r own go ver nm ent. I n a s er i es of c ase s, the D.C. Ci rcui t has r ej ecte d eff or ts by al i ens t o use B iven s to seek rel i effro m U
. S. f or ei gn po l i cya nd mi l i ta r y a ct ions o ve r se as . In San ch ez- Espi noza v. Re agan , 770 F
. 2d 20 2 ( D. C. Ci r . 1 98 5) , mem be r s o fthe U. S
. Co ng r es s a nd c i ti ze ns o fNi ca r agua b r o ug ht cl ai m s, i ncl ud i ng B iven s cl ai m s, a g ains t U. S
. g overn m en t o f f i c i a l s f o r th e i r a l l e g e d s u p p o r to ff o r c e s b e a r i n ga r ms i n N i car agua. In rej ecting the o bvi ous i nvi tat i on t o th e fede r alc o ur ts t o make f o r ei g n po l i cy, the c o ur t ex pla i ned: “we thi nk tha t a s a ge nera l m atterthe danger off or ei gn ci ti zens’ u si ng the co urts i n si tuati ons such as thi s to o bs tructthe f o r ei g n po l i cy of o urg o ve r nm en t i s s ufficientl y a cute that we m ust l eave to Congr ess th e jud gm en t w h et h er a d am ag e re m ed y s h ou ld ex i s t.” 770 F. 2d at 209. The D. C. Ci r cui t f o l l o wed tha t rea so ni ngi n Rasu l v. M yers , 563 F.3d 5 2 7, 5 30 (D
. C
. Cir. 2009) ( Rasu l II), w he re th e co ur t r el i ed o n the a l i enc i ti ze ns hi p o fthe pl ain-66 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 ti ff s in gr anti ng the d efendants qual i fi ed i m m unity, fin d in g t h at “[n ]o re as on ab le go ve rn m en t o fficia l w ou ld have been on notice that [ al i en] pl ai nti ff s had any Fi fth Am end m en t o r Ei g hth Am en dm en ts r i g ht s. ” Bec au se the Rasu l II co ur t f o und th atthe de fen dan ts wer e i m m une from suit, it r each ed the broa d er Bive ns i ss ue o nl y i n a f oo tnot e, co ncl ud i ng i n the al ternati ve that the pl ai nti ff s’ Bive ns cl ai m s were f or ecl ose d by “sp ec i alf acto rs . ” Id
. at 53 2 n.5, ci tingJ udg e Br o wn’ s co nc ur r en ce i n Rasu l v. M yers , 51 2 F. 3d 644, 67 2- 73 ( R asul I) ( concl ud i ng tha t speci alf act or s for ecl ose a Bive ns c l ai m i n the c o nt ex t o ft r e a t me n ta n d i n t e r r o g a t i o n o fe n e my c o mb at an t d et ain ee s), va ca ted, 1 29 S
. Ct
. 7 63 ( 20 08 )
. In Ras ul I, J udg e Br o wn ha d wri tt en : Tr ea t me n to fd e t a i n e e s i s i n e x o r ab l y l i n k e d t o o ur eff or t to preva i l i n the ter ro ri sts ’ war ag ai nst us, i nc l udi ngo urabi l i tyt o w orkwi thf o r ei g n g o ve r nm en ts i n c aptur i nga nd de ta i ni ngkno wn a nd p ot en tia l te r ro ris ts . Jud icia l inv olv em en t in th is d elicate a re a co uld underm i ne the se m i l i tar y a nd di plo

m ati c eff or ts and l ead to em bar ra ss m ent o fo ur g ove r nme ntab r o a d. 512 F. 3d at 673 ( Br ow n , J
. , co ncurr i ng) ( quotati on m ar ks om i tt ed); se e a l so A l- Z ahrani v. Rum sf el d, 68 4 F
. S up p. 2d 10 3, 11 2 ( D .D .C . 201 0), appe al pe ndi ng, No
. 1 0
- 5 3 9 3 ( D. C. Ci r . ) ( r ely i ngo n R asul II , find ing th at “[t]he D
. C
. Circu it’ s c on c lu sio n th at sp ec ial fa c to rs co u n se l ag ain st th e jud ic iar y’s in v o l ve m en t in th e t re at m en t o f d et ain ee s h eld at Gu antanam o bi nd s thi s Courtand f or ecl ose s it fr om cre ating a Bive ns r em edy f orpl ai nti ff s her e”)
. J ud geN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 67 Br o wn’ s r ea so ni ngi n Ras ul cannot be e xtended to b ar cl ai m s by U. S
. ci ti ze ns who ha ve no t be en ch ar g ed wi th, l et al one convi cted o f, any ter ro ri st acti vi ty. M o str ec en tly, i n Al iv . Ru m sf el d , t h e D .C . C irc u it foll o w ed R asul II a nd San ch ez- Espi noza t o ho l d tha t I r aq i an d Af g ha n c i ti ze ns de ta i ne d abr o ad i n U. S
. mil itary cu stod y cou ld not su e u n d e r B iven s f orcl ai m s o fto rture. T he cou rt’s analysis of“sp ecial f acto rs” un d er Bive ns em phasi zed the pl ai nti ff s’ st atus as al i ens. ___ F
. 3d at ___, 20 11 W L 24 62 85 1, at *4-7
. T h e D .C . C irc u it’s op in ion s in A li, R asul II

, a nd S a n c h ez - Espi noza do notev en hi nt that t h e ir reason ing w ou ld ex ten d to bar B iven s c l a i ms by ci vi l i an U
. S. ci ti zens w h o can pro ve that thei r own go ve r n me n tt o r t u r e d th e m. As o u r d i s s e n t i n gc o l l e a g u e p o i n t s o ut, th e r e i s s o me ov er lap in t h e s p ec ial fa c to rs an aly sis th a t a p p lied in th e ca se s br o ug htb y a l i en s i n A li a nd A r ar, al l o fwh om all eged they w ere tortu red , e ith er directly by th e U
. S. go ve rn m en t o r as a re su lt of a U .S. p ra c tic e o f ex tr ao r d ina r y r en di ti o n. Tho se c as es pr es en te d v ery di stu rbing al l ega ti ons about our gov er nm en t, es peci al l y in vi ew o f ou r n ation’s long com m itm en t to com p ly w ith interna tional l aw and our le a d ersh ip in opp osing tortu re w or l dw i de. W e a cknowle dge thattho se c as es prese nted diffi cul t i ssues i n apply i ng the B iven s sp ecial f acto rs anal ysi s. W he th ero ne a g r ee s o r di sa g r ee s wi th A li a nd Arar, how eve r, w e shoul d no t l et the diffi cul ty of thos e c ases l ead us t o los e sight ofthe fund am ental l y di ffer ent s i tuatio n p os ed by th e c l a i m s o fciv ilian U .S. citiz en s in th is ca se . The se pl aint i ff s ha ve a l l eg ed a gr av e br ea cho fo ur68 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442
mos tb a s i c s o c i a l c o mpa c t

— betw een “ W e the Peo ple ” an d the governm en t we c r ea te d i n o urCo ns ti tu ti o n. As d i ffi c u l ta s t o r t u r e c l a i m s b y a l i e n s ma y b e , we r epe attha t no th i ngi n A li or Arar, or in t h e o p in ion s in R asul II or San ch ez- Espi noza , i nd i cate s that thos e court s w er e wil l i ng to exte nd the unp re cedented i m m unity that de fen d an ts and the di sse nt advoc ate her e, f or cl ai m s that o ur g ove rnm ent t or ture d i ts own ci ti zens.
ii. Congre s s i onal Int e nt The defe nd ants do not ar gue that Congres s has cr eat ed an “a l ternati ve re m edy” that for ecl ose s a Bive ns r em edy. They ar gue, th ough, thatbec ause Congre ss has pass ed num er ous pi eces o fl egisl ati on r ega rdi ng detainee t re atm en t, non e of w hich p rovide d etaine es w ith a s t atu tory pri vate r i ght o fact i on, the cour ts shoul d not r eco gni ze a B iven s re m ed y for civ ilian U .S. c i t i z en s t or tu re d in m ilita ry cu st od y in a w ar zo n e. Se e, e . g. , R o n a l d W. Reagan N ati onalDefense A uthor i zati on Act f orFi scal Y e a r 2 0 0 5 , 10 U
. S. C
. § 801, stat. note § 109 2; M il itary Com m i ssi ons A ct o f200 6, Pub. L. N o. 10 9- 366, 12 0 S tat . 2600 , 26 35, co difi ed at 28 U
. S. C. § 2 241( e) ( 2)
. Con gress has a l so add re sse d detenti on s tandards in a c ri m i nal sta tute w i thout provi d in g fora pri vate ci vi l r i ght o f acti on. Se e 10 U
. S. C. § 893 ( a perso n gui lty of cruel ty an d m alt re a t m e n t o f p er so n su bj ec t t o h is or d er s s h all be p u n i shed as a co urt- m ar ti alm ay dir ect)
. Congr ess has e ven g one so f aras to cr i m i nal i ze ov er se as tor ture , se e 1 8 U .S.C . § 23 40 A , bu t e x p licit ly p ro vid ed th at it wa s n o tc r e a t i ng a new ci v i l r i g hto fa c t i o n. S e e 1 8 U. S
. C.N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 69 § 2 34 0B (“N ot h in g in th is c h ap te r sh all b e c on st ru ed
. . . as c r ea ti ng a ny s ubs ta nt i ve o r p r o c e d u r a l r i g ht en forceable by law by an y p arty in an y civilproc eed ing.”)
. F r o m Co ng r es s’ c l o se a tt en ti o n t o de ta i ne e tr ea tment w i thout cre ating a ci vi l r i ght o fact i on, defen d an ts i nfe r that a B iven s re m edy i s no t a pp ro pri ate her e. W e d i s a g re e. B iven s i s a well

- known parto fthe l ega l l a nd s c a pe , s o i ti s s i g ni fi c a nttha tCo ng r e s s h a s ta ken no ste p s to for ec lo se a citi zen ’s use of Bive ns . W e ca n ass um e that Con gr es s was aware that B iven s m i g ht apply w hen i t e nacted l egi sl ati on r el evantto detainee tr eat m ent. I n f act, w hen Congre ss enacte d th e D eta i nee Treat m ent A ct, it opted to r egul ate

— notpro hibi t

— civ il dam age s cl ai m s a gainst m i l i tar y o ffi ci al s accused of to r t ur i ng a l i e ns s us pe c t e d o f t e r r o r i sm . Congr ess cre ate d a good fa ith d efense i n ci vi l and cr i m i nal cas es f oro ffi ci al s who bel i eve d th at t hei r acti ons w er e l ega l an d au th or ize d by th e U .S. gov er n m en t: I n any c i vi l act i on o r cri m i nal pro secuti on a gainst an o ffi cer, em plo ye e, m em bero fthe A rm ed Fo rce s, o r o th era g en t o fthe U nited S ta te s Gov ernm en t [ f o r e ng ag i ngin pra ct i ce s i nv o l vingde te nt i o n a nd i nte r r o g a t i o n o f a l i e n de t a i ne e s s us pe c t e d o f t e r r o r i s m] i ts h a l l b e a d e f e ns e th a ts u c h o ffi c e r, e mplo yee , m em bero fthe A rm ed Fo rce s, oro ther ag en t d id not kno w tha t th e pr ac ti ce s wer e unl awful an d a pe r so n o fo r di na r y se ns e an d unde r st an di ng w ou ld n otkn ow th e p ra c tic es w er e u n la w fu l
. . . . N ot h in g in th is s ec tio n sh all b e c on s t r u ed to lim it orextingui sh any defe nse o r prot ecti on o ther w i se70 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442

The defen dants em phas i ze the l as ts en t en c e i n the 21 quo t ed pa s sag e, b u ti ti ndi c at es on l y thatCong re s s di d not inte n d to m ak e an y oth er ch an g e in law tha t w ou ld othe rwi s e appl y. avai l abl e t o any per son orenti ty from sui t, ci vi l o r cri m i nal li abi l i ty, or dam age s, o r to provi de i m m unity fr o m pr o se cut i o n f o r a ny c r i m i na l o ffense bythe properautho ri ti es. 42 U
. S. C. § 2000 dd

- 1( a)
. Thi s e xpress but l i m i ted defense 21 agai nst c i vi l cl ai m s by al i e n det aine es s us pec te d o ft er rori sm i s a st ro ng i nd i cati on that Congr ess has not cl ose d th e d oo r on j u d icia l rem ed ies th at are “o th er w ise av ailable,” certainly for U
. S. ci t ize ns , ev en tho ugh i t cho se not to w re stl e with j ust what thos e r em edi es m i ght b e. A ccepti ng defendants’ invi tat i on t o consi der o ther i n d ica ti ons ofCongr ess i onali ntent, we fi nd o ther pow er fu l e vidence that wei ghs he avi l y in f avo r ofr eco gni zi ng a j ud i ci alr em edy her e. Congr ess has enacte d l a ws tha t pr o v i de c i v i l r e med i e s un de r U. S
. l a w f or f or ei gn ci ti zens w ho a re to rtured b y thei r gov er nm ents. The pla i nti ff s ci te the To rture Vict i m Pro tect i on Act and the Ali en Tort St atute , 28 U
. S. C. § 1 350, wh i ch w as part ofthe J ud i ciar y A ct o f17 89, to sho w that“Congr ess and the Am er i can peopl e hav e a l w ays st oo d against to rt u re , an d C on gr e s s h as se en litiga tio n ag ain st offici al s o fo th erna ti o ns a s ani m po r ta ntt o o l t o i m pl ement A m er i ca’ s for ei gn pol i cy aga i nst t or ture . ” Pl
. Br. at30
. W he r e Con g r es s ha s autho r i ze d s uchc l ai m s byno nc itiz en vic tim s o f to rt u re by fore ign gov er n m e n ts , i tN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 71
wo ul d b e s t a r t l i ngi fUni t e d Sta t e s l a w di d n o tp r o v i de a j ud i ci alr em edy f orU
. S. ci ti zens al l eging to rture by thei r own go ver nm ent. I t would be di ffi cul t t o re conc ile the l aw o fnati ons’ prohibi ti on a gainst t or ture and the re m edi es U ni ted S ta te s l aw pr o vi des t o a l i en s to r tu r ed bythe i r g o ve r nm en ts wi tha de ci si o n n o t to pr o vide th es e ci ti ze npla i nti ff s a ci vi l r em edy if th ey can pro ve thei r al l ega t i o n s . T h e d e fe n d a n t s h a v e n o ta t t e mpt e d t o do so . As th e S ec o nd Ci r cui t he l d i n Filar tiga v. Pena-Irala , “del iber ate t or tu re p er p et ra te d u n d erco l oro fo ffi ci al au th o r i tyv i o l at es uni ve r sa l l y a cc ept ed nor m s o fthe i nt erna ti o na l la w ofhuman r i g ht s, r eg ar dl es s o fthe natio nal i ty ofthe parti es. ” 6 30 F. 2d 876, 87 8 ( 1980 ) (h old in g t h at alien vic tim s o f to rt u re in P ar a g u ay co u ld su e resp on s ibl e Para gu ayan offici al in U
. S. district cou rt und erA l i en Tor t S ta tu te f ordam age s forvi ol ati on o f l aw o fnati on s); see al so Sosa v. A lvarez-M achain , 542 U
. S. 692 ( 2004 ) (descr ibi ng the h i sto ryof the A l i en Tor t S tatute and ho l ding that dist ri ct cour ts m ay re cogni ze p riv ate cau ses of action for som e viol ations of th e law of na tions). M ostr el evant, tho ugh, i s the Tor ture Vi cti m Pro tect i on A ct of 199 1, Pub
. L. 1 02
- 25 6, c o di fi ed as a no te t o the Al i e n To r t S t a t ut e , 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 3 5 0
. S e c t i o n 2 ( a ) o fthat A ct pr ovi des a cause ofact i on f orci vi l da m age s a gainst a per son w ho, “und eractual o r apparent author i ty, o r col oro fl aw , o fany f or ei gn n ati on, ” s ubj ects ano ther perso n to to rture orextr aj ud i ci alki lling. S ecti on 2 ( b) re q u ire s U .S. cou rt s t o d ec lin e t o h ea r su c h cla im s “ if th e cl ai m ant has notexhauste d adequate and ava i l able72 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442

O ther p art s ofo ur gov ernm ent se em to agree, as J ud ge Parker 22 poi nt ed o uti n A ra r, 58 5 F .3d at 61 9 (P a rk er , J. , d iss en tin g ). The U.S. St at e Depar t m en tha s as s ur ed the Uni t ed Nat i ons Co m m it tee Ag ains t Torture that the Bi ve ns r em ed y is available to vict im s oftorture by federaloffic ial s. Un it ed Stat es (co n tin u ed ...) r e med i e s i n the p l a c e ” wh e r e the c o nd uc to c c ur r e d. U nd erthe Torture Vict i m Pro tect i on Act, i fan a l i en has been tor ture d b y her own go ver nm ent, and i fthat f or ei gn g ove rnm ent has deni ed hera c ivilr em edy, then a U. S
. c o ur t co ul d h ear th e ca se a g ains t a defen dan t f o un d in the U. S
. I two ul d b e e xt r a o r di na r y
— o ne m igh t e ve n sa y h yp oc rit ica l

— f orthe U ni ted S tates to re fuse t o hearsi m i l arcl ai m s bya U
. S. ci ti zen a gainst o ffi c i a l s o fh i s ow n g o v e r nme nt . And B iven s provi des the o nl y a vai l abl e r em edy. To i llu st ra te the a nom al ous r esul t the defendants see k, co nsi der t h e possibi l i ty that anothe r countr y has en ac te d its ow n law id en tic al t o th e U .S. To rt u re V ict im P ro te c tio n A c t. If w e a c c e p t e d d efe n d an ts ’ arg u m en t in thi s ca se and hel d ther e i s no ci vi l r em edy av aila b le, th en th er e w ou ld be n o “ ad eq u at e a n d av aila b le rem ed ies i n th e place ” w he re the con d uc t occu rred ( a U. S
. mil itary ba se )
. I fS ec r et ar y Rumsfel d c o ul d b e f o und vis itin g s u c h a c ou n tr y w ith its ow n T V P A (so h e c ou ld b e s er ve d w ith p ro c es s), V an c e a n d E rt el c ou ld su e h im i n that countr y under its to rture vi cti m pro tect i on l aw b ec au se U .S. law w ou ld p ro vi d e n o re m ed y. T h at w ou ld be a ve r y o dd r e s ul t . S ur e l y the Co ng r e s s tha te na c t ed the To rture Vict i m Pro tect i on Act w ou ld ratherhave such cl ai m s a gainst U.S
. o ffi ci al s hea rd i n U
. S. co urts . 22N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 73

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 22 W ri t t en Res pons e t o Ques t i ons Ask ed by the Uni t ed N ations Co m m it tee Ag ains t Torture, ¶ 5 (A pr. 28, 2006) , avail able at htt p://w w w . st ate. gov / g/drl / rl s/ 68554. htm ( las t ac ces se d A ug. 4, 20 11 )
. T his ans wer was i n r es pons e t o a que s t i on aboutthe fact th a t the o nly legislatio n th e U nited States h ad ena cted to g iv e effect to th e C on v en tion A g ain st To rtu re g av e U .S. cou rts cri m inal j uris dicti on ov er onl y ext rat erri tori al act s oftor ture. I n s um , we ar e no t co nvinced by the de fen dan ts ’ a r g um en t tha t “sp ecial f acto rs” p reclud e recogn itio n o f a Bive ns r emedy i n thi s ca se . A co upl e o ffi na l c o nc erns r emai n in our Bive ns a na l y si s. The de fen dan ts a r g ue that, und er the pla i nti ff s’ approach, any m i l i tar y a c tion coul d res ulti n a Bive ns cl ai m i fthe acti on were chara cte r i ze d a s a vi o l at i o n o fs o m e g o ve r nm en t po l i cy . The de fe nd a nt s a r g ue , f o r e xa mpl e , tha tthi s c o ul d inc l ud e a pl ai nti ffse eking dam age s fro m the Se cre tary o f De fe ns e f o r an ai r s t r i k e i n a l o c a t i o n b e y o nd the b o un ds o fc o ng r es si o na l a utho r i za ti o n t o w age wa r . The ar g um en t i s no t co nv i nc i ng . To daywe dec i de only the narr ow qu est ion p re sente d by the extr aor dinar y a l l ega ti ons now befor e us. The B iven s case l aw w eighs i n f avo r ofa ll owing pla i nti ff s, U
. S. ci ti zens, to pro ceed with th eir claim s tha t w hile t h ey w ere in U
. S. m il itary custo dy, t h ey w er e to rtured byU
. S. go ver nm ent o ffi ci al s. O u r d e c i s i o n t o d a y o p e n s u p th e c o u r t s t o o th e r c l a i ms l i ke thi s, but w e ho pe a n d e x p ect that al l ega ti ons of th i s na tu re w i l l b e ex ce eding l y r ar e. W e m ak e no b r o a d e r h o l d i n gab o u tw h e th e r o th e r fu t u r e c l a i ms about vi ol ati ons ofgo vern m ent pol i cy w oul d be cogni zabl e under Biv e ns .74 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442

The d is tr ic t c ourt dis m is se d the plai nti ff s’ C ounts I I and II I. 23 I n Coun tI I , pl ai nt i ff s c l ai m ed thatthe y wer e deni ed pr oce d ural du e process , speci fic all y through the denial o f a f actual basis f or thei r detenti on, acce ss to e xcul patory evidence, and the opp ortunity to app ear befor e an im parti al adjud ic ator. In Coun t I II, the plai nti ff s contended that they w ere denied acce ss to a cou rt o f law to ch allen g e the ir d eten tion
. T he se claim s are n ot b efore u s. A di ffi cul t r el at ed que sti on i s whethe r r ec o g ni zing t h e plaintiff s’ B iven s c l a i m in thi s i ns t a nc e c r e ate s a sp ec ial c at eg or y of c on s tit u tio n al rig h ts th at w ou ld st ill be e nfo rce abl e in a war z one and , i fso , wh at the l i m i ts ar e of such a cate gory. W hi l e the pla i nti ff s ar e a rguing, f orexam ple , that F i fthAm en dm en t su bs ta nt i ve due pr o cess ri g ht s appl y t o U. S
. c i ti ze ns de ta i ne d b y the U. S
. mil i ta r y i n a warz o ne , thi s appe alpr esents no i s s u e r e g a r d i n g th e f a c t o f p l a i n t i ff s ’ d e t e n t i o n o r s o me aspects o fthatdetent i on that would noth ave passed c onst i tuti onalm usteri fthe detenti on had bee n subj ect to ci vi l i an pro cess es i n the U ni ted S tat es. 23 T h e a m icu s b r ief b y t h e So c iet y of P ro fes sio n al Jou rn ali sts , the Proj ect on Gove rnm ent Over si ght, and the Go vernm en t Acco unt ab i l i tyPr oj ect in s uppo r t o fthe pl a i nt i ff s a l s o r a i s e s i mpo r t a nt qu e s t i o ns ab o utwh at r emedi es U. S
. c i ti ze n-j o ur na l i st s ha ve i n warz o ne s. The co nc erns o fthe se a m i ciwer e m an i fes t i n Kar . In that case , a U
. S. ci ti zen a l l eg es thathe went to I ra q to m ake a hi st o r i ca l do cument ar y fi l m , w as arr es te d b y I r aq i autho r i t i e s , a nd the n wa s t r a ns fe r r e d t o U. S
. a utho r i t i es an d d et ain ed atC am p C r o p p e r for t w o m on th s. A ltho ugh r e c o g ni z i ngtha tthe F o ur th a nd F i fth Am e nd

-N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 75

For a t h o ugh tful dis cuss ion ofs om e ofthe se i ss ues, s ee 24 Jo sé A . C a b ra n es , O u r Im p er ia l C rim in a l P ro c ed u r e : P ro b lem s in t he Extr at er ri t or i al A ppl i cat i on of U.S. C onst i t utionalLaw , 118 Y a le L .J. 1 6 6 0 (20 0 9 ). m en ts “ ce r ta i nl y pr o te ctU
. S
. c i ti ze ns de ta i ne d i n the co ur se o fho st i l i ti es i n I r aq, ” se e 58 0 F
. S upp. 2 d a t 83, the dist ri ct j ud ge fo und thatthe defe nd ants had not vi ol ate d any cl ear l y e stabl i shed const i tuti onalr i ghts: A s weak a s the go ver nm ent’ s a uthor i ty i s, Kar has p ro vid ed n on e a t a ll

— no prece dent thatcl ear l y e stablish es th e rig h t o f a U .S. citi z e n t o a p ro m p t p ro b ab le ca us e he ar i ngwhende ta i ne d i n a war zo ne . Any att em pt to applythe tw o-day re quir em ent fro m [ C ounty of Rivers ide v. M cLaugh li n , 5 0 0 U
. S. 44 (1991)] orthe seve n-day re quir em en t fro m the Patr i ot A ct t o K ar ’ s ci rcum sta nces i gnor es the d i ffer ences between detenti on o n U
. S. soi l and det enti on i n host i l e t er ri tory. Id
. a t 85
. W e ar e i nc l i ne d t o a g r ee w ith tha t o bs er va ti o n, an d i nde ed, many b r o ade r que st i o ns rem ain abo ut the a pp l i c a t i o n i n a wa r z o ne o f c o ns t i t ut i o na l sa f egu ard s w e hav e d evelop ed over tim e to prote ct U
. S. c i ti z e ns ’ r i g ht s . T he r e ma y b e di ffi c ul tque s t i o ns a he a d, 24 b u t o u r j ob is to d ea l w i t h t h os e q u es tio n s. W e s h ou ld not l et th e pros p ect of difficultq u e s t ion s in the futu re ca use u s t o c l o se the c o ur th o us e do o r s to the s er i o us cl ai m s pre sente d by these al l ega ti ons. I n rej ecting the defendants’ “s peci al f acto rs ” a rgum ents f ora com ple te and unp re c ed ented ci vi l i m m unity f o r t o r tu r e o fU. S
. c i ti ze ns , we ha ve tr i ed to a ppl y the c au tio n re quir ed i n apply i ng Bive ns . But cauti on i s a l so76 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442
re quir ed fro m the opposi ng per specti ve. Our co urts have a long hi sto ry

— m or e than 200 ye ar s

— o fpr o vi di ng dam age s r em edi es f ort hose wh ose r i ghts ar e v i ol ate d by our gov er nm ent, i ncl ud i ng o ur m ilitary
. S ee Iq b al , 12 9 S. Ct. at19 48, ci ti ng D unl op v . M unroe, 1 1 U. S
. ( 7C r an ch ) 242 , 2 6 8 ( 1 8 1 2 ) ( i n c a s e a g a i ns tp o s t mas t e r, fe deral offi ci al ’ s l i abi lity “wil l o nl y r esul t fro m hi s o w n negl ect i n not proper l y superi ntending the disc harg e” of h is subor dinat es’ duti es) ; Bive ns , 403 U .S. at 3 95 -97(co ll ec tingc as es s ho wi ngtha t damag es a g ains t g o ve r nm ent offi ci al s a re hi sto ri cal l y the r em edy f ori nvasi on o fpe rso na l i nt er es ts i n l ibe r ty, a nd qu o tingM ar b ury v . M adi s on , 5 U
. S. ( 1 Cra nch ) 13 7 ( 1803 ) : “The v er y e sse nce of ci vill iberty cer t a inly consists in th e ri gh t of every i nd ivid u alto cl ai m the prot ecti on o fthe l aw s, wh eneve r h e re c eiv es an inju ry .”); L i t t l e v . B a r r e me, 6 U. S
. ( 2 Cr an ch ) 170, 178-79 (18 0 4) ( hold ing tha t com m an d er of a w ar shi p w as “answerabl e in dam age s” to t h e o w ner of a neutr alve sse l se i zed pursuant to orders fro m Pres iden t bu t in viol ation of statu te). I fwe w er e to accept the defe nd ants’ i nvi tat i on t o re cog ni ze the b ro ad and unp re cedented i m m un ity they see k, th enthe j udi ci alb r an ch

— whi chi s ch ar g ed wi the nf o r cing const i tuti onalr i ghts

— woul d be le av i ngo urc i ti ze ns defe nsel ess to se ri ous abuse o r w or se by anothe r bran ch of their ow n gov ernm en t. W e rec ogn ize that w rongd oers i n the m i l i tar y would s ti l l be subj ec t to cri m i nal pro sec ut i o n wi th i n th e m i l i ta r y i ts el f
. Re l y i ng so l ely o n the m il itary to poli ce its o w n treat m en t of civil ians, how ever, woul d a m o untt o a n e xt r ao r di na r y abdi ca ti o n o fo ur go ve rn m en t’s ch ec ks an d ba lan c es th at p re se rv e A m er i-N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 77

Va n c e h a s b e e n a b l e t o r e c o v e r h i s l a p t o p c o mpu t e r f ro m 25 mi l i t a r y o ffi c i a l s , w h o r e c o v e r e d i tfr o m a s e a r c h o fa n A r my C r i mi n a l I n v e s t i g a t i v e C o mma n d e v i d e n c e f a c i l i t y a tC a mp V ic tory i n Iraq, but plaintiffs are s ti llm is si ng other pers onal i t e m s s e i z e d wh e n the y we r e de t a i ne d. ca n s ’ l ib e r t y . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tc o r r e c t l y a l l o we d pl ai ntiffs to proceed w ith th eir Bive ns cl ai m s forto rture.
D. M i l i t ary Author i ty E xc ept i on t o theAdm i ni s t r at i ve P roce dure A ct (AP A ) F i na l l y, we tu r n t o the pl aint if fs’ cl ai m a g ains t th e U ni ted S tat es to re cove r perso nal prop er ty se i zed fro m the m bythe U. S
. mi l i t a r y wh e n the y we r e detai ne d. 25 The questi on is w hetherthe “m i l i tar y a uthor i ty” exce pti on i n the A dm i ni str ati ve Pro cedure A ct, wh ich pro hibi ts j udi ci alr ev i ew o f“ m i l i ta r ya utho r i tye xe r ci se d i n the fi e l d i n t i me o f wa r o r i n o c c up i e d t e r r i tor y, ” 5 U. S
. C. § 7 01(b) ( 1) ( G), pre cl ud es subj ec t m att erj uri sdic ti on ove r the pl ai nti ff s’ clai m . W e r evi ew thi s quest i on o f l aw de novo. See Th om as v. General M otors Acceptance C orp. , 2 8 8 F
. 3 d 3 0 5 , 3 0 7( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 2 )
. We c o n c l ud e that the “ m i l i ta ry authori ty” exce pti on pre cl ud es j ud i ci al re vie w an d rev er se th e d ist ric t c ou r t ’ s d ec isio n on th is c l a i m. The “m i l i tar y a uthor i ty” exce pti on to the A dm i ni str ati ve Pro c edure Act pro vi des thatthe ri ght o fj ud i ci al r e v i e w fo r p e r s o n s a g g r i e v e d b y g o v e r n me n ta c t i o ns d oe s n otex te n d t o th e e x er c ise of m ilita ry au th or ity “in78 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 th e fi el d i n t i m e o fwar . ” 5 U. S
. C. § 70 1(b) ( 1) ( G)
. The pl ain l an g ua g e o f th e st atut o r y ex ce pti o n pr events the co ur t fr o m r ev i ewi ngmil i ta r y de ci si o ns r eg ar di ng th es e pl aint i ff s’ pe r so na l pr o p erty. F i r st, the r e i s no questi on that the se i zure o fpl ai nti ff s’ pro pert y w as an ex ercise of “m il itary a ut hority” by U
. S. m il itary person n el s tat i oned i n I ra q. Vance a nd Erte l acknow l edge th at th eir p rop erty w as taken by m em bers o f th e m il itary i n c o nne ct i o n wi tha mil i ta r y i nv es ti g at i o n. S ec o nd, the co nfi sc at i o n o fpr o per tyo cc ur r ed “in t i m e o fwar . ” The al l e g e d s e i z u r e o fth e p r o p e r t y o c c u r r e d i n 2 0 0 6 i n the m i dst o fa congr ess i onal l y- author i zed wa r i n I ra q. S ee A uthor i zati on for Use o fM i l i tar y F or ce Agai nst I ra q R es olu tion of20 02, Pub. L. N o. 10 7- 243, 11 6 S tat . 14 98 (20 02 ); In reIr aq an d Af gha nistan D e t ai ne e s Li t igat i on , 47 9 F. S up p. 2d 85 , 10 2 ( D.D. C. 2007 ) ( tak i ng judici alnot i ce th at th e U n ite d Sta te s is at w ar in Ira q ); Q ualls v. Rum sf el d, 35 7 F
. Sup p . 2 d 2 74, 2 83
- 84 ( D. D. C. 2 00 5) ( r ec o g ni zing th atthe Uni te d S ta te s was a t wari n I r aq )
. Thi r d, the m i l i ta r y per so nne l se i ze d pl aint i ff s’ pr o per ty “in the fi el d. ” W he n the i r pr op erty was s ei ze d, Va nc e an d Ertelwere i n Baghdad duri ng an ar m ed confl i ct. S ee, e . g. , R a sul v . B ush , 21 5 F
. S up p. 2d 55 , 64 n . 1 1 ( D.D. C. 2002 ) ( concl ud i ng tha t the m ilita ry a u th or i ty excepti on w ou ld bar reli ef un d er the A PA becau se p lai nt iffs w ere capture d i n ar eas wh er e the U ni ted S tat es w as “enga ged i n m i l i tar y ho sti l i ti es pursuant to th e J oi nt Reso l uti on o fC o n gr es s” ), aff’d, A l O da h v . U nited Sta tes , 32 1 F
. 3d 1 1 3 4 (D .C . C ir. 20 03 ), r e v’ d on othe rgroun ds , Rasu l v. Bush , 54 2 U .S. 46 6 (2 00 4); D oev. Su l l i van , 93 8 F
. 2d 1370 , 13 80 ( D.C. Cir. 19 91) ( sugge sting tha t the exce pti on a pp l i esN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 79 to “m i l i tar y com m ands m ade i n com bat zones or in p rep aration for, or in the afterm ath of, battle”). The dis tr i ct c ou rt r el i ed onJaffee v . U nited Sta tes , 59 2 F
. 2d 71 2 ( 3d Ci r . 1 97 9) , t o di st i ng uish be twe ena cl ai m f o r the r etur n o fpr o per tya nd a c ha l l en ge to the i ni t i a l s e i z ur e o f pr o pe r t y . We fi nd Ja ffeeinapp osi te. There , i n a c a s e tha tdi d no ta ddr e s s r e c o v e r y o fp e r s o na l p r o per ty, the plain tiffsued under the A PA to chal l enge the g ove rnm ent’ s f ai l ure to tak e r em edi alm eas ures to prot ect sol die rs wh o w ere e xposed to an a tom i c expl osi on a t a m i l i tar y b as e in N evada. The co urt hel d that the “ m i l i tar y a uthor i ty” exce pti on di d n ot a pp l y b ec au se th e a rm y’s failu re to ac t w as “n eit h er in t h e fie ld nori n ti m e o fwar. ” Id
. at 720. The ato m i c blas t o c curr ed du ring the Korea n confl i ct, bu t thousands o fm i l es of l and and ocean sep ar ate d the bl astsi te i n N evada fro m th e a ctive com bat zon e in K orea. T he se facts are read il y d isti ng uish able from th o s e before us, w he re Vance and E rtel ’ s pro pertywas al l ege dlyse i zed fro m th em in t h e m id d le of a w ar zo n e. F u r t h er m or e, w h ile th e Jaffee p lai nt iffs sou gh t reli ef for t h e govern m en t’s fa i l u re to ac t y ea rs aft er th e K or ea n W ar h ad offic ially en d ed , V an ce an d Erte l, by con trast, seek an inq uiry i nto the whereabouts o fthei r proper ty w hi l e th e confl i ct i n I ra q i s o ngoing. The dis tr i ct j ud ge denie d the m oti on t o dism i ss base d o n the po ss ibi l i tytha t th e pla i nt i ff s’ pr o per tymightno l onge r be he l d “i n the fi el d,” and al l owed the c lai m to pr o ce ed to pe r m i t di sc o ve r y t o i nqui r e i nt o i ts pr es en t l o ca ti o n. W e do no t fi nd thi s rea so ni ngpe r su as i ve . The80 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442
ca se s cited by the di st r i ctc o ur t to s uppo r t th i s r ea so ni ng ar e all re ad ily d ist in gu ish ab l e . S e e , e . g. , D oe v. Rum sf el d, 29 7 F
. S upp. 2 d 11 9, 1 29 ( D. D. C. 2 00 3) ( fi ndi ngtha t th e “m i l i tar y a uthor i ty” exce pti on did n ot preve nt j ud i ci al r e v i e w o fa de c i s i o n t o r e qu i r e Amer i c a n t r o o ps sta ti oned w i thi n t h e U ni ted S tat es to subm i t t o anthra x vac cinat ions bec au se claim s d id n ot c h all en ge “m il itary au th or i ty exer ci sed i n the fi el d i n a t i m e o fwar o r in oc c u p ied te rrit or y” ); R o sner v. U nited Sta tes , 231 F. S up p. 2d 1202 , 12 17- 18 ( S. D. Fl a. 20 02) ( al l owing, i n “an abund ance of caution, ” d iscovery on the ap p li cation of th e “m il itary au th ority” exce p tion to the U nited States A rm y’s seizure o fpr o per tye xprop ri at ed bythe Hunga r i ang o ve r nm en t d u rin g W o r l d W ar II ). In co n tr as t t o th es e c as es , i t is cl earthatVance a nd Erte l ’ s per sonalp ro p er ty w as se ize d by “m ilita ry au th or ity ex er c ise d in t h e f ield in tim e of w ar.” 5 U
. S. C
. §701(b)(1)( G ). R e g a r d l e s s o fth e c u r r e n tl o c a t i o n o fth e p r o per ty

— wh e the r i n F o r tHoo d, Te xa s , o r i n Ro c kI s l a nd , I l l i no i s , a s p l a i nt i ff s s ug g e s t, o r i n Ba g hd a d

— i t was seized by an d rem ains in the cu stod y ofm il itary e n g a g e d i n o n g o i n gh o s t i l i t i e s i n I r a q . Wh i l e i n s o me case s it m ay be a pp ro pri ate f orthe dist ri ct c ourtto o rder disc ove ryto deter m i ne wh etherthe “m i l i tar y a uthor i ty” ex cep tion ap p li es, no ad d iti ona l d iscovery is neces sary on thi s i ssue he re w here the excepti on cl ear l y a pp l i es as the c l a i ms ha v e b e e n pl e d.

III
. Concl us i on The deci si on o f the dist ri ct c ourti n N o. 10

- 1687 denyi ng i n partS ecr et ar y Rum sfel d’s m oti on t o dis-N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 81

m i ss i s A FFI RMED . The de ci si o n in No. 1 0- 24 42 de ny i ng d is m i ss alo fthe pe r so na l pr o per tyc l ai m s unde r the A dm i ni str ati ve Pro cedure A ct i s R EVER S ED .

M A NI ON, Cir cu i tJudg e, c o nc ur r i ngi n pa r t an d di ss en ting i n part . M uch att enti on wil l be f ocuse d on the f act that th e cou rt has sus tained a com p lai nt all eging th a t f orm erS ec r et ar y Rumsfel d was pe r so na l l y r es po ns ibl e f o r the tor ture o fU ni ted S tat es c i ti zens. H owever, the m ost si gni ficant i m pact o fthe cour t’ s ho l ding i s i ts extensi on of Bive ns v. Six Unknow n N a m e d Age nts of Fe de r al Bure au of Narcoti cs , 403 U
. S. 388 (1971 ). Sp ecifi cally, the cou rt hol ds that a “ Bive ns r em edy, ” as i m pli ed causes o fact i on f orvi ol ati ons ofco nsti tuti onalr i ghts have com e t o be k no wn, i s av ai l ab l e to Unite d S ta te s ci ti ze ns a l l eg i ng to rt u re w h ile h eld in a n A m er ica n m ilita ry p ris on in an active w ar zone . Pr e s e n t c ase law requ ires a very cauti ous a pp ro ach be f or e e x tend i ng a Bive ns r e med y into an y new cont ex t, an d em p ha sizes t ha t the re are m an y “ spe ci alf ac to r s” p re se nti n thi s par ti cul arc o nt ex t that shoul d cause us to hesi tat e a nd w ait for Congr ess to ac t. Bec au se the c o ur t ha s no t ex er ci se d tha t r es tr aint i n thi s ca se, Ir espect fully di sse nt.82 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 Forstar ter s, thi s ca se i s no t about const i tuti onalr i ghts, ag ain st tor ture o r othe rwis e

— th e d efe n d an ts rea d ily ac k n o wl e d g e th a tth e ty p e o fab u s e a l l e g e d b y the pla i nti ff s would r ai se ser i ous c onst i tu tional i ssues . Rather, this c ase cent er s o n the appropri ate rem edies f orthatabuse and w ho m ust deci de w hat those r em edi es w i l l be. Conf ro nted by al l ega ti ons as ho rr ibl e a s those des cr ibe d i n thi s ca se , i t i s unde r st an dab l e th atthe c ou rt concl ud es that ther e m ust b e a r e med y f o r the se p lai nt iffs. B ut that conc ern sh ou ld n ot ena ble this cou rt to cre a t e new l aw . For dec ad es, th e Sup rem e C ou rt has ca ut i o ne d tha t su chde ci si o ns s ho ul d b e l eft to Co ng r es s, e spe ci al l y w he r e th er e ar e “s pec i alf ac to r s co unsel i ng hes i tati on in the abse nce o faffi rm ati ve acti on by Congre ss. ” Wi l k i ev . R o b b i ns , 5 51 U
. S. 537, 550 (2007 ); s ee a lso, e . g. , Sc hwe i ke rv. Chi l i cky, 48 7 U.S
. 41 2, 42 1- 23 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ( r e fu s i n ga c a u s e o fa c t i o n o fso c i a l s e c u r i t y c o mp lain ts ); U nited Sta tes v. Sta nley, 48 3 U.S
. 66 9, 68 0-81 ( 1987 ) ( no ca use o faction by m i l i tar y s er vi ce m em ber w he n th e inj ury arise out of activity i nc iden t t o service). Th i s l o ng s t a nd i ngr e l uc t a nc e cr e a t e s a v e r i t ab l e p r e s umpti o n aga ins t re cogni zi ng addit i onali m pli ed causes o f ac ti o n. In l i ne wi ththi s pr es um pti o n, b o th c ircui ts c o nfro n te d w ith alleg at ion s o f co n st itu tio n al v io l at ion s in w arzo nes have re fused to r eco gni ze a Bive ns r em edy. See A li v. Rum sf

el d, ___ F
. 3d ___, 20 11 W L 24628 51, at *6 (D .C . C ir
. J u n . 21, 20 11 ); A rar v. A shcroft, 58 5 F
. 3d 55 9, 63 5 (2d C ir. 20 09 ). Th e c ou rtva u lts ov er th is conse nsus and , forthe fi rs t t i m e e ver, r eco gni zes a B iven s cause ofact i on f orsui ts al l eging con sti tuti onal vi ol ati ons by m ili tar y per sonneli n an ac ti ve w arzo ne.N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 83

I c o n c u r, how ev er, in the co u rt’ s d ism issal of the p lain tiffs’ 1 pro per t y c l ai m s pur s uan tt o the m i l i t ar y a uthor i t y excep t i on to th e A d m inistra tiv e P ro ced u re A ct. T he cou rt’ s rheto rical d issection o f “im m u nity ” o b scu res, 2 rather than cl ari fie s, an al ready com plex and confusi ng is sue. W he the r a B i vens rem edy i s available and w hetherparti cular federal of fic ial s are e nti tl ed to ei ther absolut e or quali fie d im m u nity are en tirely d istinct qu estion s. “Im m u n i t y ” is i n d ee d an issu e e lse w h er e i n th is su it, se e i nf ra no t e 5, bu t p ri m a ri ly the i ss ue bef ore us i s w hetheror not ther e i s a n i m pl i e d Bi ve n s cau se ofac t i on di re c t l y unde r the Cons t i t ut i on. Idi sse nt be cause sor ti ng out the appropri ate r em edi es i n thi s co m ple x and peri l ous a re na i s Congr ess’s r ol e, not the cou rts’. 1 Befo r e ex pl aini ngthe pa r ti cul ar s o fmy di sagr ee m en t w i th the co urt, it is i m port ant t o str ess the proper ques t i o ns b e f o r e the c o ur t . Othe r wi s e , g i v e n the s e v e ri ty o fth e al l eg at i o ns a nd the c o nt r o ve r sys ur r o undi ng the m i l i ta rypol i ci es und er l yi ng thi s ca se, we ri sk ge tt in g s id et ra c ke d . W h at w e a re as k ed to d ec id e is si m pl y who

— the c ourt s o r Congre ss

— s ho ul d deci de wh e th e r th e co ur t s w i l l r e v i e w c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c l a i ms aga i nst m i l i tar y per sonnelthatar i se i n an ac ti ve w ar zone, under wh at condi ti ons and param ete rs that review shou ld take p lace, an d to w ha t ext en t m em bers o fth e mi l i t a r y, w h e th e r h i g h o r l o w, s h o u l d h a v e i mm unity fro m sui t. W heth erther e shouldbe j ud i ci al 2 re vi ew o fthes e cl aim s is a pol i cy questi on, o ne that Ibel i eve i s o utsi de the purvi ew o fthi s co urt to deci de.84 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442

A dis t i ngui s he d co l l ec t i on offou rt ee n f or m erSe c re t ar i es of 3 D ef ens e a nd M e m be r s of the J oi nt Ch i e f s of S t a ff fi l e d an am icu s br ief urg ing us to w ait for C on g ress to d ecid e ho w to ha nd le alleg ed c o n stitutio na l vio lation s by m ilitary p erso nn el. Th e y m a ke a s t r on g c a s e tha tthe r e a r e a de q ua t e a l t e r na t i ve rem ed ies th a t the p lain tiffs ha v e no t pu rsu ed , con trar y to the c our t ’ s c onc l us i on. The Suprem e Cour t r efi ned i ts c au tio us approa ch to th i s que st i o n in Wi l ki ev. Rob b i ns , 551 U
. S . 5 3 7, 5 50 (2007). There, i t a dopt ed a tw o- part tes t t o deter m i ne wh ether to ex te n d im p lied ac tio n s in to a n e w co n te x t. Firs t, if th er e ar e ade qua te a lternat i ve r emedi es , the r e i s no ne e d fo r a n i mpl i e d Bive ns re m edy. A nd seco nd , if ther e a re “s peci alf actors co unsel i ng hes i tat i on, ” co urts shoul d l eave th e crea ti on o fnew rem edi es to Congre ss, w hich i s after al l “in a far bett er pos iti on th an a c ou rt to evaluate the i m pact of a n ew speci es ofl i ti gat i on aga i nst those w h o ac t on the publi c’ s be hal f
. ” Id. at55 0, 562. The court f ocuse s m osto fi ts att enti on o n the “speci al f a c t o r s ” p r o n go fth e t e s t . Iw i l l f o l l o w s u i ta n d a s s u me f orthe sak e o far gum ent that the fi rs t pr ong i s s ati sfi ed and no m eani ngful al ternati ve re m edy exi sts i n sta tute or re gul ati on. I thi nk i t cl ear that ther e ar e s p ecial 3 f ac tor s an d pr ec ede nt s th ats ho ul d c o nt r o l thi s ca se . The cour t ho l d s ot h erw i se, but Iwould poi nt to wh at Ise e as the fi ve defe cts i n the cour t’s hol ding: ( 1) the l ack of pr ec ede nti n i ts f av o r ; ( 2) the unde r es ti m at i o n o fthe ri sks o fj ud i ci alrevi ew o fwarti m e m i l i tar y a cti vi ty; ( 3) i ts uns ucc es sfula tt empt t o di stingui shpr ec ede nt fr o m o th er c i r cui ts ; ( 4) the i na ppl i cabi l i tyo fr ec en t habeas co rpus j uri sprudence; a n d fi nal l y ( 5) the f ai l ure toN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 85
re cogni ze the c onse quences o fi ts h old ing a nd the prece dent i t s ets . The re sol uti on o fthe speci alf acto rs anal ysi s i s s tr ai ghtf o r war d. I fa ny th i ngqua l i fi es as a “ spe ci alf ac to r [ ] c o unse l i nghe si ta ti o n, ” i t i s th e r i sko fthe j udi ci ar y pr y i ng in to m att er s o fnati onalse curi ty ordi sr up ti ng the m ilitar y’ s e ffi ci ent e xecuti on o fa w ar . N at ionalse curi ty m at te r s ar e “r ar ely p rope r s ubj ec ts f o r j udi ci ali nt er ve nti on, ” Ha ig v . Ag ee, 45 3 U.S
. 28 0, 2 92 ( 1981 ) , and “co urts tr adi ti o na l l y ha ve bee n r eluct an t to i nt r ude upo n the author i ty of the Ex ecuti ve i n m i l i tar y an d nati onal secur ity affai rs . ” D ep’ tof Navy v. Egan , 48 4 U.S
. 51 8, 53 0 ( 1988 )
. In that ar en a, cour ts w i l l nece ssa ri l y hav e t o pass j udg m en t on s en si ti ve matt er s o fmil i ta r y po l i cy, i ncl udi ngwho i s ( o r s ho ul d b e) r es po ns ibl e f o r makinga nd im p lem en tin g th at p olic y a t v ar iou s le ve ls. Fu rt h er , j u d ici alr ev i ew o fwar ti m e dec i si o ns wi l l ne ce ss ar i l y i nvo l ve s i g ni fi ca nta m ount s o fc l as si fi ed m at er i al s, g en er ating publ i c di scussi on o fse nsi ti ve m att er s o fn atio nal secu rity in op en cou rt. T he com m ons en se u n d e rstan d ing tha t the cou rt s s h o uld exerc ise caut ion before ve ntur i ngo uti nt o the b at tl efi el d i s r efl ec te d i n the li m i ted pre cedent t o date. W hi l e the S up re m e Cour t has not taken up th e qu estion of Bive ns i n the conte xt o f war ti m e m i l i ta r y a ct i o ns , the D.C
. Ci r cui t an d the en banc Se cond C irc uithave bo th co ncl ud ed that Bive ns sh ou l d n o t e x te n d to su its by w ar tim e d et ain ee s. See A li, ___ F.3d

___, 20 11 W L 24 62 85 1, a t *6 ; Arar, 58 5 F .3d 55 9. W e s h ou ld follow ou r sis te r circ u its in lea vin g for C on gr es s th e tas k of ad d re ss in g th e “ w h o ,” “wha t, ” “whe n, ” “whe r e, ” “why, ” an d “ ho w m uch ” que st i o ns o fc i vi l da m ag es r emedi es f o r mil i ta r y de ci si o ns86 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442

Th e c o u r t a l s o c o r r e c t l y n o t e s th a t U n i t e d S t a t e s c i t i z e n s do 4 no tl os e the i r c on s t it utio na l r i gh t s whe n the y ve ntur e a br oa d. I st re s s a g a i n th a tth e l a c k o fa n i mpl i e d c a u s e o fa c t i on und er Biv e ns d oe s no ts t ri p pl ai nt i ff s he re ofthe i r c ons t i t uti onal ri ghts ( againsttor ture o r anythi ng els e) i n a w ar zone; itm erel y f orces Cong res s to s ort out a diffic ult is sue. M or eo ver, the c our t ’ s c i t at i ons i nvol ve m i l i t ar y t ri al s f or c i vi l i a ns a nd h a be a s c or pu s r i gh t s f orc i t i z e ns, a nd h a ve nothing to do w ith li abili ty und er Bi ve ns ( or an y oth er ca u se ofact ion)
. ( O pn. at56) i n w ar ti m e, r atherthan ex p l or i ng an uncharte d m aze of m i l i tar y and nat i onal secur i ty pol i cy i n a f or ei gn war zo ne. The cour t’s ci tat i ons see m to acknow l edge thi s l ack of prece dent. A l l o fthe case s i t c i tes i n i ts f avo r add re sse s di ffe r e ntc o nt e xt s a nd di ffe r e nts pe c i a l fact o r s . I ta pproa ches th e “s peci alf acto rs ” a nal ysi s in thi s ca se by ar gui ng tha t the m i l i tar y deta i nee c ontext i s no t that m uchdi ffer en t fr o m o th erc o nt ex ts inwhi ch Bive ns ac ti o ns ha ve b ee n a l l o wed. Butthe se c as es a re largel y besid e th e po int, bec au se th ey d o not con cern th e l e g i t i ma t e s p e c i a l f a c t o r s o f n a t i o n a l s e c u r i t y a nd m i l i tar y pol i cy at pla y in thi s ca se. T he co urt poi nts out prece d en t t hat Bive ns cl ai m s hav e l ong been “av ailab l e t o pri sone rs wh o ass er t that they ha ve been abused o r m i str eat ed bythei r federa l j ai l or s, ” see, e . g. , C a rlson v . Green , 44 6 U.S
. 14 ( 1980 ) ; ( Op n. at53 ) that the S up re m e Cour t, thi s co urt, and others h av e al l owed Bive ns cl ai m s t o continue aga i nst m i l i tar y o ffi ci als, Saucierv. Ka tz , 53 3 U.S
. 19 4 ( 200 1), and even c abi net m em b er s, M it chel l v. Fors yth , 47 2 U.S
. 51 1 ( 1985 )
. These 4 case s do est abl i sh thata Bive ns r em ed y m ay l i e a gainstN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 87

m i l i tar y per sonnel

— a nd eve n the i r c ab i ne t
- l e v e l s up eriors

— i n a dom est i c se tting. But beca use no ne o f them i nvol ved cl ai m s a ri si ng ab ro ad ordur in g w ar, they do not provi de any gui dance to t h e i ssue at the he ar t o f th i s ca se. N am ely, whethe r j udi ci alr ev i ew o fa ct i o ns und er tak en b y the m i l i tar y in an ac ti ve f or ei gn war zon e rai ses speci alf acto rs thatsho uld ca uti on us to hesi tat e a nd al l ow C ongr ess to cr eat e a n ap p ro pri ate ca us e o fa ct i o n. Se cond, the cour t underst ate s the di ffi cul ti es that i n h e r e i n j u d i c i a l r e v i e w o fmi l i t a r y a c t i v i t y i n a t i me of w ar. W hile i t d oes ackn ow ledge th e issu e, th e cou rt does not appear t o appreci ate j ust ho w m uch j ud i ci al re vi ew m i ght intrude o n diffi cul t a nd se nsi ti ve m atter s. T he co urt ar gues

— as d id Ju d ge C ala b re si in h is di ss en tingo pin i o n in Arar

— that the s tat e s ecr et pr i vi l eg e i s al l th e pr o te ct i o n we ne ed to sa feguard co nfid en tialm att er s o fnati onalse curi ty fro m co m prom i se inop en co u rt . Se eAr ar, 585 F.3d at 635 ( C a la b r esi, J
. d iss en tin g). B u t sor tin g ou t claim s of p riv ile g e w o u ld i ts el fe nt ai l s i g ni fi ca ntj udi ci ali nt r us i o n in n at i o na l s ec uri ty aff ai rs , and Congr ess i s i n a m uch bet te r p osi ti on to bala nce the co m peti ng nee ds f ornati onalse curi ty and the vind i cati on o fcitizens’ co nsti tuti onalr i ghts. T h e c ou rtals o s tr es se s t h at th e jud icia l sc ru t i n y in thi s a nd o thercas es w i l l be “w el l afterthe f act” an d “sho uld not im p in ge inap p rop riately on m il itary dec i si o n-m aking. ” ( Opn. a t 59 ) Buti t sh o ul d g o wi th

out say in g that the e xi ste nce o fa ci vi l dam age r emedy y ea r s do wn th e l i ne may affec t deci sions88 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 b e i n gma d e o n th e s a me ba t t l e fi e l d t o d a y, b yth e s a me orsi m i l ar l y s i tuate d i nd i vi du al s. That i s no t to say that som e j ud ici alr evi ew i n thi s a re a m ay not be ne cessary

— Iagree w ith th e cou rt tha t a llegations of torture ag ains t a U. S
. c i ti ze n a r e a ve r y s er i o us matt er . But g i ve n the s i g ni fi ca ntpi tf al l s o fj udi ci ale nt an g l ement in m i l i tar y deci si onm aking, i t m ust be Congr ess , not the c ou rt s, that extends the r em edy and defi nes i ts l i m i ts. Thir d, the c ourt too- casual l y s i desteps the wei ght o f prece dent from o therci rcui ts that Bive ns sho uld not be e xtended to s u i ts aga i nst m i l i tar y o ffi ci al s for w ar tim e a c tio n s . See A li, ___ F
. 3d ___, 20 11 W L 24628 51, at *6; Arar, 5 85 F
. 3d 55 9. I t do es thi s bypo i nt i ngo ut that thos e ca ses i nvolv ed al i ens, r atherthan ci ti zens. Bu t the f or ei gn status ofthe pla i nti ff s a nd pote nti al f or ei gn pol i cy i m pli cati ons w er e har dlythe onl y s peci al f acto rs atpl ay in those deci si ons. In i ts e n b ancdeci si on re fusi ng to r eco gni ze a Bive ns r e m e d y, th e Se c on d C irc u it al so l i ste d th re e o therspeci alf acto rs : nati onalse curi ty i nter est s, co nfi denti ali nfo rm ati on, and the ri sks pose d by proce edi ngs in open co u rt . Arar, 58 5 F
. 3d at 575, 57 6- 77. A nd the D.C. Cir cui t has consi ste ntl y re fer re d t o the ris k of “ ob st r u c t in g n at ion al s ec u rit y p olic y” an d h as rec en tly stres sed that“a l l owing a Bive ns a ct i o n t o b e br o ug ht ag ain stA m er ica n m ilita ry offic ials en ga ge d in w ar w ou ld disrup t and hi nd er the abi l i ty of our ar m ed f or ces to act de ci si ve l y a nd wi th o uthe si ta ti o n in de fen se o fo ur l iber ty and nati onali nteres ts. ” A li, ___ F
. 3d at ___, 20 11 W L 24 62 85 1, at *6; see also R a sul v . M yers , 56 3 F
. 3dN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 89

T he cou rt also d isting u ishes R as u l IIbecause iti nvo lved 5 detainee s w ho w ere kno w n o r potent ial te rrori st s, w hereas he re the pl ai nt i ff s “h ave no tbe enc har ge d w ith, letal one c onvi c t ed o f, an y t er ro ri s tac t i vi ty. ” ( Op n. at67 ) Bu t the pl ai nti ff s w ere obv iousl y consi dered a securi ty threatw hen they were fi rs tappr eh en ded; why s houl d the f ac tthatthe m i l i t ar y e ven t uall y concl ud ed otherw is e be rel evant to the Bi ve ns s pec i al f ac t or a na l ys i s ? I ns t e a d, i thighl i gh t s why the c ou r ts ho ul d n otbe p i c k i n g a n d c h o o s i n g b e t w e e n v a r i o u s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l t o r tc l a i ms bas ed o n “ c ounte rva i l i ng f ac t or s thatm i ghtc ouns elal ac ri t y or act ivis m , ” w hich have nev er been a p a rt ofthe Bi ve ns s pecial fa ct o rs an a ly sis
. A ra r, 585 F. 3d at 573- 74. 527, 532 n.4 ( D
. C
. Cir. 2009) ( R asul II) ( i nter nal quote s om itted ). 5 Four th, the cour t ci tes r ecent S up re m e Cour t habe as cor pu s ca ses approv i ng l i m i ted j u dici alo ver si ght o ver m ilita ry d et en tio n d ec isio n s, b u t th es e a re cle ar ly i nap p os ite. The defendants co gently obj ect that the f act that Congre ss has perm i tte d the l i m i ted r el i efo fhabea s co r pus a ct i o ns

— ess enti al l y e quit abl e relief

— say s next to no th i ngabo utwhethe r the c o ur ts s ho ul d g i ve the gr een l i ght t o a m uch bro ader i m pli ed cause ofact i on f orm oneydam age s. To thi s, the cour t r esp ond s that “th ose [hab eas] cases also involve som e j ud ici al in q u iry into m atters affecting n ational s e c urity an d m il itary ac ti vi ty, ” an d the r efo r e “we i g h a g ai nstthe a r g um en t th a tthe c o ur t s mus ts i mpl y de fe r t o e xe c ut i v e a utho r i ti es ina c as e in vo lvin g a lleg ed to rt u re o f a U .S cit ize n in U
. S. m i l i tar y c ustody. ” (O p n . a t 6 2 n. 18) Thi s r ej oi nd er m iss es th e p oin t e n tir ely , ho w ev er . I e m p h as ize o n c e a ga in90 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 that i t i s no t a questi on o fdefer ring to exe cu t i veautho ri ty, but to C o ng ress . A nd the questi on i s no t whether the c ourt s ar e co m petent to re vi ew m il i tar y deci si ons, norev en whethe r su ch rev i ew wou l d b e ne ce ss ar y o r wi se . The onl y q u est i on be f or e us i s whether these co m ple x questi ons of m ili tar y e ffi ci ency, nati onalse curi ty, and separ ati o n ofpower s co ns ti tu te “ spe ci alf ac to r s co uns el i ng h e s i t a t i o n . ” Cl e a r l y th e y d o , a n d th e r e f o r e S u p r e me Cou r t pr ec ede ntdi cta te s th atthe se s en si ti ve que st i o ns be l eft forCongr ess to r eso l ve thro ugh the cre ati on ( or n ot ) of a c au se of ac tio n for c ivil re m ed ies
. F i na l l y, th e co ur t do es no t r ec o g ni ze the f ar - r ea ch i ng i m pl i ca ti o ns o f i ts ho l di ng . I t st r es se s th at i ts hol di ng is li m i te d t o “ th e na r r o w que st i o n pr es en te d b y the e xtr aor dinar y a l l ega ti ons n ow befo re us. ” ( Op n. at73 ) That is, the rem ed y e x t en d s (at l east for now ) only to U
. S. ci ti zens w ho a re to rtured

— an d perh ap s to other, nebul ous “co re const i tuti onal ri ghts”

— w hile in U
. S. m i l itary cus to dy i n a warz o ne . The c o ur t o ffer s no l ogi calr eas on wh y i ts unp re ced en ted hol ding that a B iven s re m edy i s a vai l abl e foral l ega tion s of t or ture by m i l i tar y per sonneli n an ac ti ve w arz one shoul d not ex te nd to o th erc o ns ti tu ti o na l v i o l at i o ns . Ins te ad, the co ur t l ab el s su chc o nc erns “ no t co nv i nc i ng . ” ( Opn. at 73 ) But cl ai m s si m i l ar to th o se be f o r e us cou ld certa i nl y pr o l i fer at e bas ed o n thi s pr ec ede nt . Gi ve n the en o r m o us numbe r s o fc i vi l i anc ontr ac to r s wor k i ngi n the cur r en t f o r ei g n w ar zo ne s ( a f ac t to whi chthe cou rt i t s e lf al lud es), the p oten tial scop e of th e cou rt’s Bive ns r em edy i s i tse l fa sp eci alf acto r that shoul d causeN os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442 91

I al s o h ave ser i ous r es er vat i ons abo utothe r as pec t s ofthe 6 cou rt’ s op inio n, esp ecia l ly its ho ld ing tha t Secre tary R u m sfeld m ay b e he ld p erso na lly liab le for the a l l eg ed actio ns o f his sub or d ina tes u nd er the p lain tiffs’ alleg atio ns. Th e cou rt id en tifie s two al le ged bases f or Sec ret ary R um sfel d’s pers onal resp on sibility

— his actual authori zati on of abu si ve int errogat i ont e c hn i q ue s a tthe t i m e pl a i nt i ff s a l l e ge the y we re t or t ur e d, and h i s del iber at e i ndi ffer en c e i n the f ac e ofkno wle dge of on g oin g ab u sive treatm en t of de tain ees, i nc lud ing A m erica ns. The fi rs t s et ofal le gati ons i s enti rel y speculat ive. The pu rported bas i s i s a s i ngl e ar t i c l e i n the New Y or k Ti m es thatdoe s no t actu all y sup p or t the p lain tiffs’ claim s that Se creta ry R u m sfeld (co n tin u ed ...) us to hesi tat e be f or e tak i ng thi s fi rs t s tep. U nfo rtunatel y, fr au d a nd c o r r upt i o n a m o ngA m er i ca n wo r k er s i n a w arzo ne i s no t ra re . These and com m on cr i m es of ro b b er y a n d as sa u lt c an lan d an A m er ica n civ ili an in th e br i gunde r mil i ta r y s upe r vi sio n. The v o l um i no us l i ti gat ion bypri sone rs i n ourdom est i c pri sons evi dence th e po ss ibi l i tyo f“ wel l pl ea ded co m pl aint s” underthe Bive ns fr amew o r kb y Am er i ca ns who c l ai m t o r tu r e an d ot h er cruel and unusual tr eat m ent w hi l e bei ng hel d in a m i l i ta r y pr i so n in a warz one. W hi cho fthe potenti al l y thousands ofwarti m e cl ai m s from A m er i can em p loyees of con tr acto rs (orothers) w il l th e cou rt en tertain u nd er this new cau se of action? Fu tu re cour ts s h oul d not hav e t o pu t the l i d back on Pa ndo r a’ s Bo x. Forthes e r eas ons, Idi sse nt fro m the cour t’ s deci si on t o a l l o w the p l a i nt i ff s con s t i t ut i o na l c l a i ms t o p r o c e e d. 692 N os. 10

- 1687& 10

- 2442

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 6 appr ove d the c ont i nue d us e ofthe t ec hni que s i n ques t i on vi a c onfi dent i al adde ndum t o the Arm y Fi el d M anu al. The ar t i c l e s t at es ne i th e r th a tth e c o n fi de n t i a l a dd e n dum app roved the te chniques , nor that the add endu m w as ever app roved
. The se cond set o fal le gati ons m ay hav e great er p lau s ibi l i t y, butthe c our t ’ s opi ni on does no te xpl ai n why the pr e di c a t e s f orde l ibe r a t e i nd i ffe r e nc e i n the m i l i t a r y c ontext (f ar re m ov ed f ro m the u sua l pr ison con text) are su fficiently c l ea rl y e s t abl i s he d as t o de fea tqua l i fi ed i m m uni t y.
8- 8- 11 Ico nc u r w i th the co urt’ s di sm i ssa l o fpl ai nti ff s’ A dm i ni str ati ve Pro cedure A ct c l ai m s.