Opinion ID: 78456
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicable Statutes

Text: The First Congress enacted the ATS as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789. It has received minor amendments since that time [8] and now provides: The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1350. Federal subject matter jurisdiction exists for an ATS claim when the following three elements are satisfied: (1) an alien (2) sues for a tort (3) committed in violation of the law of nations. See, e.g., Aldana, 416 F.3d at 1246. A violation of the law of nations is broadly understood as a violation of the norms of customary international law. In discussing the norms of customary international law, the Supreme Court has noted the limited category of claims that federal courts could entertain at the time the ATS was enacted were defined by the law of nations and recognized at common law. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 712, 124 S.Ct. 2739, 2754, 159 L.Ed.2d 718 (2004). Offenses against the law of nations principally involved the rights or interests of whole states or nations, and did not necessarily involve the private interests of individuals seeking relief in court. Id. at 720, 124 S.Ct. at 2759. As this Court has previously noted, the law of nations are [t]he standards by which nations regulate their dealings with one another. Cohen v. Hartman, 634 F.2d 318, 319 (5th Cir. Unit B Jan.1981) [9] ([T]he general consensus is that the law [of nations] deals primarily with the relationship among nations rather than among individuals. (internal quotation marks omitted)); accord In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litig., 978 F.2d 493, 501-02 (9th Cir.1992) (Only individuals who have acted under official authority or under color of such authority may violate international law....). At the time of the founding of our nation, the violations of the law of nations that were recognized at common law were understood to include (1) violation of safe conducts, (2) offenses against ambassadors, and (3) piracy. Sosa, 542 U.S. at 720, 124 S.Ct. at 2759; see also 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 68 (1769). [10] The ATS-which provides [t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction-is unquestionably a jurisdictional statute, yet it also has the practical effect of entertaining common law causes of action for the modest number of violations of the law of nations. Sosa, 542 U.S. at 724, 124 S.Ct. at 2761. The ATS was rarely employed before the 1980s. Indeed, the modern line of [ATS] cases began with Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir.1980). Sosa, 542 U.S. at 725, 124 S.Ct. at 2761; see also Abebe-Jira v. Negewo, 72 F.3d 844, 846 (11th Cir.1996) (describing Filártiga as [t]he leading case interpreting the Alien Tort Claims Act). In Filártiga, Dr. Joel Filártiga and his daughter, two Paraguayan citizens, brought an action for wrongful death against a Paraguayan police official who allegedly tortured and killed Dr. Filártiga's seventeen-year old son. Filártiga, 630 F.2d at 878. The Second Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and held the ATS provided federal jurisdiction for claims involving universally accepted norms of international law. Id. The court concluded such universally accepted norms included the right to be free from torture committed by a state official. Id. at 880. The court, thus, expanded the ATS beyond the three categories recognized at the founding of the nation. In Sosa, the Supreme Court confirmed the ATS is not only a jurisdictional statute [11] ; the ATS also empowers federal courts to entertain a very limited category of claims. Sosa, 542 U.S. at 712, 124 S.Ct. at 2754; see also Aldana, 416 F.3d at 1246. Plaintiff Humberto Alvarez-Machain, a Mexican national, brought an action under the ATS against the United States, alleging his abduction from Mexico to stand trial in the United States for a Drug Enforcement Administration agent's torture and murder violated his civil rights. Sosa, 542 U.S. at 698-99, 124 S.Ct. at 2746-47. In rejecting his ATS claim, the Supreme Court held a single illegal detention of less than a day, followed by the transfer of custody to lawful authorities and a prompt arraignment, violates no norm of customary international law so well defined as to support the creation of a federal remedy. Id. at 738, 124 S.Ct. at 2769. While not recognizing Alvarez-Machain's claim for a violation of the law of nations, the Court did note the limited category of claims federal court could entertain within the law of nations sphere had expanded beyond the original understanding of the First Congress. Indeed, federal courts have not been precluded from recognizing new claims under the law of nations as an element of the common law, even though the law of nations was originally limited to violation of safe conducts, offenses against ambassadors, and piracy. Id. at 724-25, 124 S.Ct. at 2761. The Supreme Court cautioned, however, the judicial power to recognize new law of nations violations should be exercised on the understanding that the door is still ajar subject to vigilant doorkeeping.  Id. at 729, 124 S.Ct. at 2764 (emphasis added). The modern line of ATS cases initially involved state actors violating the law of nations, but subsequent cases have expanded the scope of the ATS to impose liability on private individuals and corporations. In 1995, the Second Circuit held Radovan Karadzic, self-proclaimed leader of an unrecognized Bosnian-Serb entity, could be liable for a violation of the law of nations for ordering a campaign of murder, rape, forced impregnation, and other forms of torture designed to destroy religious and ethnic groups of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats. Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 242 (2d Cir.1995). Karadzic argued he was not a state actor because he was not an official of any recognized government. The Second Circuit rejected Karadzic's contention and held acts such as genocide and war crimes violate the law of nations whether undertaken by those acting under the auspices of a state or only as private individuals. Id. at 239; see also id. at 244. Indeed, torture and summary execution perpetrated in the course of genocide or war crimes have been found actionable absent state action. See id. at 243 ([T]orture and summary executionwhen not perpetrated in the course of genocide or war crimesare proscribed by international law only when committed by state officials or under color of law.). This Court has also acknowledged private individuals may be liable for a violation of the law of nations. See Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 552 F.3d 1303, 1316 (11th Cir.2008) (Under the Alien Tort Statute, state actors are the main objects of the law of nations, but individuals may be liable, under the law of nations, for some conduct, such as war crimes, regardless of whether they acted under color of law of a foreign nation.). In addition to private individual liability, we have also recognized corporate defendants are subject to liability under the ATS and may be liable for violations of the law of nations. See id. at 1315 ([T]he law of this Circuit is that [ATS] grants jurisdiction from complaints of torture against corporate defendants.); Aldana, 416 F.3d at 1242. In Romero, the Colombian subsidiary of an Alabama coal mining company was alleged to have paid paramilitary operatives to torture and assassinate leaders of a Colombian trade union representing workers at the Colombian mine. Romero, 552 F.3d at 1309. We rejected defendants' argument that corporate defendants were excluded from either the ATS or the TVPA. Id. at 1315.
Enacted in 1992, the TVPA provides a cause of action for official torture and extrajudicial killing. [12] The TVPA is broader than the ATS in that the TVPA allows citizens, as well as aliens, to seek remedy in federal court for official torture. S.Rep. No. 102-249, at 5 (1991) ([W]hile the [ATS] provides a remedy to aliens only, the TVPA ... extend[s] a civil remedy also to U.S. citizens who may have been tortured abroad.); see also Flores v. S. Peru Copper Corp., 414 F.3d 233, 246-47 (2d Cir.2003). By its terms, the TVPA attaches liability to those individuals [13] who have committed torture or extrajudicial killing under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation. To evaluate actual or apparent authority and color of law, this Court has relied on general principles of agency law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 jurisprudence. Aldana, 416 F.3d at 1247; accord Kadic, 70 F.3d at 245. To pursue a claim for official torture or extrajudicial killing under the TVPA, the requisite subject matter jurisdiction may be conferred either by the ATS or 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Romero, 552 F.3d at 1315 (Federal courts are empowered to entertain complaints under the Torture Act when either the Alien Tort Statute or the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, provides jurisdiction.). This Court, in Aldana and Romero, squarely considered the state action requirement of the TVPA. In Aldana, the plaintiffs alleged Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc., and its Guatemalan subsidiary hired or established an agency relationship with a private, paramilitary security force to eradicate the local union. Aldana, 416 F.3d at 1245. We concluded the state action requirement was satisfied because one public official, a district mayor, was identified by name in the complaint and was alleged to have actively participated in the paramilitary force's armed aggression. Id. at 1249 (concluding the complaint could reasonably be read as depicting the Mayor as an `armed aggressor,' not a mere observer). On the other hand, in Romero, we determined the state action requirement was not satisfied because the plaintiffs failed to allege the paramilitaries enjoyed a symbiotic relationship with the state military for the purpose of the alleged assassinations that formed the basis of the complaint. Romero, 552 F.3d at 1303. We concluded there must be proof of a symbiotic relationship between a private actor and the government that involves the torture or killing alleged in the complaint to satisfy the requirement of state action. Id. at 1317; accord Rayburn ex rel. Rayburn v. Hogue, 241 F.3d 1341, 1348 (11th Cir.2001) ([T]he symbiotic relationship must involve the specific conduct of which the plaintiff complains. (internal quotation marks omitted)).