Opinion ID: 186111
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Limited Cause of Action under the Flatow Amendment

Text: 41 Section 1605(a)(7) waives the sovereign immunity of a designated foreign state in actions in which money damages are sought for personal injury or death caused by one of the specified acts of terrorism, if the act of terrorism or provision of material support is engaged in by an official, employee, or agent of such foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, or agency. 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7). Section 1605(a)(7) is merely a jurisdiction conferring provision that does not otherwise provide a cause of action against either a foreign state or its agents. However, the Flatow Amendment, 28 U.S.C. § 1605 note, undoubtedly does provide a cause of action against [a]n official, employee, or agent of a foreign state designated as a state sponsor of terrorism for personal injury or death caused by acts of that official, employee, or agent for which the courts of the United States may maintain jurisdiction under section 1605(a)(7). The question here is whether the Flatow Amendment, which does not refer to foreign state, may be construed, either alone or in conjunction with section 1605(a)(7), to provide a cause of action against a foreign state. 42 This issue was flagged in Price v. Socialist People's Arab Jamahiriya, 294 F.3d 82 (D.C.Cir.2002), where we observed that 43 [t]he FSIA is undoubtedly a jurisdictional statute which, in specified cases, eliminates foreign sovereign immunity and opens the door to subject matter jurisdiction in the federal courts. See First Nat'l City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611, 620, 103 S.Ct. 2591, 2596-97, 77 L.Ed.2d 46 (1983). There is a question, however, whether the FSIA creates a federal cause of action for torture and hostage taking against foreign states. 44 Id. at 87. Since Price, some district court opinions in this circuit have held or assumed that the Flatow Amendment creates a cause of action against foreign states. See Cronin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 238 F.Supp.2d 222, 231 (D.D.C.2002) (holding that the Flatow Amendment provides a cause of action against a foreign state). See also Regier v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 281 F.Supp.2d 87, 98-99 (D.D.C.2003) (adopting Cronin 's reasoning that there is a cause of action against foreign states under the Flatow Amendment); Kilburn v. Republic of Iran, 277 F.Supp.2d 24, 36-37 (D.D.C.2003) (same). 45 This court, however, has never affirmed a judgment that the Flatow Amendment, either alone or in conjunction with section 1605(a)(7), provides a cause of action against a foreign state. The issue was raised in Bettis v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 315 F.3d 325, 333 (D.C.Cir.2003), but the appeal was resolved on other grounds. In Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 333 F.3d 228 (D.C.Cir.2003), the court noted that, [i]n view of the Flatow amendment's failure to mention the liability of foreign states, it is `far from clear' that a plaintiff has a substantive claim against a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, id. at 234 n. 3, but that appeal was also decided on other grounds. 46 We now hold that neither 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) nor the Flatow Amendment, nor the two considered in tandem, creates a private right of action against a foreign government. Section 1605(a)(7) merely waives the immunity of a foreign state without creating a cause of action against it, and the Flatow Amendment only provides a private right of action against officials, employees, and agents of a foreign state, not against the foreign state itself. Because we hold that there is no statutory cause of action against Iran under these provisions, we affirm the District Court's judgment without deciding whether the evidence presented by the plaintiffs is sufficient to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress or loss of solatium. 47