Opinion ID: 61659
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cases relied on by the District Court

Text: In reaching its conclusion that Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the political question doctrine, the district court relied on two other district court opinions that barred tort suits against private contractors operating in a war zone. See Smith v. Halliburton, No. 4:06-cv-00462, 2006 WL 2521326 (S.D.Tex. Aug.30, 2006) (unpublished); Whitaker v. Kellogg Brown & Root, 444 F.Supp.2d 1277 (M.D.Ga.2006). [9] Among the distinctions we find significant, in Smith the injuries occurred inside a military base in Iraq after a suicide bomber penetrated security checkpoints operated solely by the military. Smith, 2006 WL 2521326, at -6. Whitaker involved a claim by an American soldier against private contractors whom he was ordered to escort in Iraq. 444 F.Supp.2d at 1279, 1281 n. 4. [10] There are other recent precedents that find tort claims against civilian contractors performing support services in a war zone do not necessarily raise nonjusticiable political questions. See McMahon, 502 F.3d at 1357-65; Carmichael v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Servs., 450 F.Supp.2d 1373, 1374-76 (N.D.Ga.2006); Potts v. Dyncorp Int'l, LLC, 465 F.Supp.2d 1245, 1248-54 (M.D.Ala.2006); cf. Ibrahim v. Titan Corp., 391 F.Supp.2d 10, 15-16 (D.D.C. 2005) (An action for damages arising from the acts of private contractors and not seeking injunctive relief does not involve the courts in `overseeing the conduct of foreign policy or the use and disposition of military power.') (quoting Luftig v. McNamara, 373 F.2d 664, 666 (D.C.Cir. 1967)). In summary, different cases involving different claims require their own discriminating inquiry under Baker.