Opinion ID: 186111
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Appearance of the United States as Amicus Curiae

Text: 28 On November 6, 2003, the court issued the following order soliciting the views of the United States: It is ORDERED, on the court's own motion, and in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 517, that the United States of America file, by December 1, 2003, a statement of its current position on the question whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-11 (2003), allows a cause of action for torture and hostage taking against foreign states, or only authorizes statutory claims against state officials, employees, or agents as specified in the Flatow Amendment, 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (note) (2000). 29 When the United States appeared in Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran, the Government submitted, inter alia, 30 The Flatow Amendment does not provide a cause of action against foreign nations or their governments.... Quite unambiguously, the statute provides a cause of action against individual official[s], employee[s], or agent[s] of foreign states for the acts of terrorism in which they have taken part, but not against foreign states themselves. 31 The United States' Motion to Vacate Default Judgment and Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims at 20-21, Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 195 F.Supp.2d 140 (D.D.C.2002) (Civ. No. 00-3110 EGS). In a later submission in Roeder, the Government further submitted that, 32 as the United States observed previously, the plain language of the Flatow Amendment provides the victims of terrorist acts a cause of action against the official[s], employee[s] or agent[s] of a foreign state who commit such acts, not against the foreign state itself. 33 Reply Memorandum in Support of the United States' Motion to Vacate Default Judgment and Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims at 17, Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 195 F.Supp.2d 140 (D.D.C.2002) (Civ. No. 00-3110 EGS). 34 The court hereby requests that the United States indicate whether the Government's position on the scope of the cause of action under the Flatow Amendment remains the same as indicated above, and, if not, explain how and why the position of the United States has changed. 35 Cicippio-Puleo v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 02-7085, 2003 WL 22669558 (D.C.Cir. Nov. 5, 2003) (order requesting statement of United States). 36 After receiving a two-day extension of time in which to submit its position, the United States filed a brief as amicus curiae on December 3, 2003, stating the firm view that the Flatow Amendment does not provide a private right of action against a foreign state: 37 Neither Section 1605(a)(7) nor the Flatow Amendment, nor the two considered in tandem, offers any indication that Congress intended to take the more provocative step of creating a private right of action against foreign governments themselves. Such a move could have serious adverse consequences for the conduct of foreign relations by the Executive Branch, and therefore an intent to do so should not be inferred — it should be recognized only if Congress has acted clearly in that direction. 38 Br. for the United States as Amicus Curiae at 5.