Document: 536 U.S. 403 CHRISTOPHER, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL.v.HARBURY. No. 01-394. Supreme Court of the United States. Argued March 18, 2002. Decided June 20, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR DISTRICT COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Respondent-plaintiff Harbury alleges that Government officials intentionally deceived her in concealing information husband, a Guatemalan dissident, had been detained, tortured, and executed by army officers paid Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), this deception denied access to courts leaving without information, or reason seek with which she could have brought lawsuit might saved husband's life. In District Court, raised against CIA, State Department, National Security Council, each, common- international-law tort claims, claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, U. S. 388, on behalf estate, own for violation of, inter alia, constitutional right courts. The dismissed claims. With respect access-to-courts counts, court held not stated valid cause action because (1) having filed no prior suit, only guess how alleged coverup prejudiced rights bring separate action, (2) defendants would be entitled qualified immunity. appealed dismissal but Columbia Circuit reversed claim petitioners denial Held: has judicial access. Pp. 412-422. (a) Access-to-courts fall into two categories: systemic official frustrates plaintiff preparing filing suits at present time, where pursued once frustrating condition removed; specific cases cannot tried, matter what may future. Regardless whether turns litigating opportunity yet gained an already lost, point recognizing is provide some effective vindication distinct relief wrong. Thus, ancillary underlying claim, suffered injury being shut out court. It follows element must described complaint as though it were independently pursued; that, when (like one) looks backward, identify remedy awarded recompense otherwise available suit brought. its lost addressed allegations sufficient give defendant fair notice. facts case underscore need care stating tenable predicate action. acts apparently taken conduct foreign relations Government, any enquiry will raise concerns separation powers trenching matters committed other branches. Since resolve such issues should avoided possible, trial position soon possible know ruling obviated fail state claim. 412-418. (b) Harbury's did come even close denial-of-access upon granted. disruption compromised, unstated supposedly sought complaint's counts. improve Appeals gave counsel oral argument supply missing allegations. He intentional infliction emotional distress one wrong injunctive But does satisfy requirement backward-looking obtained existing counts naming CIA defendants, including officer who allegedly tortured killed are among survived motion dismiss Court. can damages possibly sort consequences those although obtain order neither therefore unique loss consequence inability intentional-infliction earlier. 418-422. 233 F. 3d 596, remanded. Souter, J., delivered opinion REHNQUIST, C. STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. THOMAS, concurring judgment, post, p. 422. Richard A. Cordray argued petitioners. him briefs was Harry Litman. Solicitor General Olson States amicus curiae urging reversal. brief Assistant Attorney McCallum, Deputy Clement, Patricia Millett, Barbara L. Herwig, Robert M. Loeb. Jennifer K. Harbury, respondent, pro se.* JUSTICE SOUTER 1 detained his country military government, (CIA). One count complaint, after death, charges respondent issue states actionable We hold not, reasons. As fails alleged. And subsequent, informal amendment accepted Appeals, presently unavailable otherwise. 2 * Respondent citizen, widow Efrain Bamaca-Velasquez, rebel leader vanished 1992. we reviewing dismiss, accept factual take them light most favorable her. See Leatherman Tarrant County Coordination Unit, 507 163, 164 (1993). Bamaca captured forces, trained (in States), paid, used informants CIA. App. 27-28 (Respondent's Second Amended Complaint ¶¶ 35-42, 46-47). more than year interest paid. Id., 28 (¶¶ 43, summarily orders same affiliated id., 28-29 48-49), sometime before September 1993, 31 (¶ 66), 34 84).1 3 knew early 1992, alive shared White House Department. 27 35). Officials there, however, "intentionally misled" "deceptive statements omissions, believing concrete about fate exist they want threaten their ability from Mr. through detention torture." 67). 4 makes three deception, all involving Department officials, while still alive. First, says contacted several unnamed 1993 express who, according eyewitness, 29 50, ¶ 55). They "promised look assist her," ibid., nor made public Bamaca, reports May confirmed he 30 56-59). Second, August Marilyn McAfee, then Ambassador Guatemala, advised submit written report effect remains found grave purported fact his, promptly did. 30-31 60-63). Although McAfee promised "investigate immediately[,] findings," keep "properly informed regarding situation," ibid. 62), 64). Third, (the month learned dead, 66)), engaged week-long hunger strike Guatemala City focus attention plight, told nothing, 31-32 64-68). 5 According allegations, Government's deceptions omissions continued intensified killed. From October until 1995, Council (NSC) repeatedly met communicated 32 70-71), 80, 83), 35 86), conveying impression nothing sure seeking "concrete information" husband informed, 33 75). At point, November 1994, Adviser Anthony Lake "`scraped bottom barrel'" avail 83). All along, army, 84), misleading complicity Bamaca's torture death revealed, 36 92). dead 1995 congressman publicly announced colonel also agent 91). II 6 A later, 1996, NSC, members each individual capacities. amended, listed causes federal, state, international law. 38-62. directly concern us here, important determine 7 four categories Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment imprisonment, torture, execution, declaratory relief,2 money capacities theory 388 (1971). 38-42 (counts 1-5). Next, behalf, sued violating "right familial integrity" Fifth, Ninth Amendments imprisoning, torturing, executing husband. 42-48 6-13). common law torts invoking Federal Tort Claims Act, §§ 2401(b) 2675, 54, herself estate causing conspiring 55 18-19); negligent supervision resulting false assault battery, wrongful 56-58 20-22); (3) NSC misrepresentation, constructive fraud, interference possess spouse's body, 58-62 24-27), making deceptive ... alive" 58 (count 23). Fourth, said arise estate. 62 28). 8 addition these direct harm, relied First raising unconstitutionally impeded courts, 49-51 14-15), well speak freely petition 51-54 16-17). basic if simply "no comment" rather affirmatively thinking doing something, able "to appropriate actions save life." 37 98).3 "was foreclosed effectively adequate legal redress." Ibid. B 9 For failure 1-3, 6-9, 14, 16). counts: execution violated due process 4-5), based claimed association 10-13), 15), free speech 17). defendants' 18-27) 10 (including theory), acknowledged five Courts "have conspiracies destroy cover-up evidence crime render plaintiff's remedies inadequate ineffective violat[e] access," Pet. Cert. 43a, "would dismissed" (without prejudice) because, "nothing guess" action." 46a. reasoned event immunity unlike destroyed, manufactured, hid evidence, here act contrary "clearly established norms reasonable understand" less "forthcoming discussing intelligence received Bamaca." 48a-49a. C 11 pursue relief, Deutch, 600-601 (CADC 2000). affirmed violations rights, 3d, 604, association, 606-607, rights.4 dismissal, 607-611. 12 agreed merely basis "`key witnesses now missing, crucial memories faded'" generally falls short 609 (quoting Court). held, insofar "effectively prevented emergency time went conclude "[b]ecause completely avenue requiring postpone aspect finishes prosecuting claims." Nor bar words, "we think obvious mislead citizens purpose protecting themselves suit." 611.5 D 13 Three left Appeals's decision: various common-law distress, (neither dismissed), preventing (which reinstated). petitioned review court's holding cross-petition claim6 sole us. granted certiorari, 534 1064, (2001), importance Nation's affairs, reverse. III 14 This Court's extended over entire range general rubric elsewhere, consider examples Appeals7 our own, emerge. first class time. prison-litigation cases, library prisoner's use case, Bounds Smith, 430 817, 828 (1977); Lewis Casey, 518 343, 346-348 (1996), reader illiterate prisoner, 347-348, lawyer, challenging fees poor plaintiffs afford pay, object waiver fee open courthouse door desired litigation, appeals federal habeas petitions criminal cases,8 civil asserting family-law e. g., Boddie Connecticut, 401 371, 372 (1971) (divorce fee); B. 519 102, 106-107 (1996) (record parental-rights termination action). sort, essence denying litigate potential plaintiffs. term; justification place removed. 15 second category covers aid litigated, tried (or material evidence), future.9 caused settlement meritorious Foster Jackson, 425, 429 (CA5 1994); Bell Milwaukee, 746 2d 1205, 1261 (CA7 1984) ("[T]he resistance investigating police rendered hollow [the plaintiff's] redress"), sue, Swekel River Rouge, 119 1259, (CA6 1997) (police throughout "time file statute limitations"), particular here. These do forward future backward litigation ended poorly,10 commenced, produced subsequently unobtainable.11 ultimate sorts then, judgment further lawsuit, itself, providing obtainable 16 While circumstances thus vary, kind same. Whether very However unsettled courts,12 rest recognition indicated much recent access, supra, noted forward-looking prisoner remove roadblocks named "nonfrivolous," "arguable" 353, n. 3, given treat differently respect. anticipated just describe litigation. follows, too, There is, all, spending establish constituting end up off simpler element. 17 Like notice defendant. Swierkiewicz Sorema N. A., 506, 513-515 (2002). try pleading standards spectrum address risk inherent Characteristically, independently,13 enhances natural temptation part too much, alleging shown full focused solely details 18 Hence enough apply "nonfrivolous" test show nature hope.14 get unobtainable suits, itself identified hedge way through, find award 19 identifying, determining, plea. timely denial) Government. there enquiry, Navy Egan, 484 518, 529 (1988) ("`[F]oreign policy [is] province responsibility Executive'"); Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. Waterman Corp., 333 103, 111 (1948) executive decisions political, judicial"). ought cf. Housing Urban Development Rucker, 535 125, 134-135 (2002); Ashwander TVA, 297 288, 345-348 (1936) (Brandeis, concurring), 20 sum, hopelessly incomplete coincides obligation Judicial Branch avoid deciding needlessly. sake accordance Rule Civil Procedure 8(a),15 pursued, like plain statement it. 21 Under standards, read appreciating anguish, Judge requests "nearly unintelligible." 32a. seemed confirm intended failed going protean allegation "false concealment Plaintiff 50 175). supposed 24 set complaint. 22 Nothing happened position. That court, frustrated unattainable,16 Counsel responded distress17 life: 23 "[I]f disclosed possessed injunction distress. Even discuss situation, explained, FOIA immediately, perhaps obtaining necessary Instead, reassurances, waited complete `investigation.'" 609. adopted saying "adequate redress" purposes meant futile action.18 25 think, treating error. assumption surmount difficulties distress,19 choice assume intends "CIA defendants," 18-19).20 portion If maintained conceivably demonstrated alleged.21 true She apparent, i. e., remain pending Court.22 surviving cannot23 maintain substitute, 26 reversed, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. so ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici affirmance Association Trial Lawyers America Jeffrey R. Laura Tharney; Brennan Center Justice Jodie Kelley; Lawyers' Committee Rights San Francisco Bay Area et al. E. Borton, Scott D. Wiener, Rubin, Steven Shapiro, Lucas Guttentag. footnote "[n]ew exists suggesting 1994 longer," Brief 23, unequivocally (and other) disclosure "concerning location body" prevent "[d]efendants taking future." 63 allege affirmative duty disclose response explicitly say thisBivens 17) dismissed, but, reversing spoke single "access courts." 611 ("[W]e reverse district claim"). rehearing,Harbury 244 956, 957 (2001) (per curiam), rehearing en banc, 960, 961 judges dissenting banc. challenge below existence underBivens (1971), case. See,e. Delew Wagner, 143 1219, 1222-1223 (CA9 1998); 1263-1264 1997); Vasquez Hernandez, 60 325, 329 1995); 429-431 Williams Boston, 784 430, 435 (CA1 1986); 1260-1266 1984); Ryland 708 967, 974-975 1983). Smith Bennett, 365 708, 713-714 (1961) (filing petitions); Burns Ohio, 360 252, 255-258 (1959) (fee appeal case); Mayer Chicago, 404 189, 195-196 (same, petty crime); Griffin Illinois, 351 12, 16-20 (1956) (transcript appellate case). decided see 7,supra; assume, deciding, correctness decisions. Some actual attempt sue prerequisite SeeDelew, 1222-1223; Swekel, 1263-1264. 46a (District adopting requirement). 1264, ("We recognize instances system. Plaintiff, presented case"). Bifurcation simplification, categorization, helps Decisions grounded Article IV Privileges Immunities Clause,Chambers Baltimore Ohio Co., 207 142, 148 (1907); Blake McClung, 172 239, 249 (1898); Slaughter-House Cases, Wall. 36, 79 (1873), Petition Clause, Bill Johnson's Restaurants, NLRB, 461 731, 741 (1983); California Motor Transport Co. Trucking Unlimited, 508, 513 (1972), Murray Giarratano, 492 1, 11, (1989) (plurality opinion); Walters Assn. Radiation Survivors, 473 305, 335 (1985), Fourteenth Equal Protection, Pennsylvania Finley, 481 551, 557 (1987), Clauses, Wolff McDonnell, 418 539, 576 (1974); 380-381 result fabricated cover-up, see,e. Foster, 427; Bell, 2d, 1223, subject trial, different defendants. rejected Circuits, 10,supra, 608-610 (2000), foreclose heinous pervasive futile. essence, rule litigate, frivolous, bringing nonfrivolous "A sets forth shall contain showing pleader relief...." pressed Lodging asAmicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners 7, 19, 44, 47 (respectively, "Now [predicate] looked like? Can you explain [A]ccess what[?] like?") (Tr. Proceedings 99-5307 (Sept. 8, 2000)). counsel's answer amounting pleadings cure inadequacy clarification, appears referring elsewhere 18-19). Seeinfra, Whatever latitude allowed pleading, construe mean mentioned suffice 22-33 (listing 1993), supplement argue, delayed Freedom Information Act filing, which, presumably, involved down road obstructed compulsory disclosure, serve Because "amended" indicate seeinfra, 422, unnecessary claim's satisfying arguable example, death; appear ground alone. plausible causal link between issued behavior uncertain consistently powers. And, course, assumes unlikely certify exercises capacity, did, Act. § 2680(h) (excluding certain assault, misrepresentation); 2680(k) arising country); Shearer, 52, 57 (1985) (no employee context). Krc, 989 1211, 1216 1993) ("injunctive available" intentional-tort bars remedy), cert. denied, 510 1109 (1994). Indeed, navigate concerns, apparent many make matter, "[w]here [extreme outrageous] directed third person, actor liability recklessly severe member person's immediate family results bodily harm." Restatement (Second) Torts 46(2)(a) (1965). unclear meet either intent presence requirements. room argue exception situations, Jenco Islamic Republic Iran, 154 Supp. 27, (DC 2001) (allowing publication substitute presence), far situation become known public, thrust every conceal 17,supra. emotional-distress 23), duplication constitute successful, reveal (if known), irrelevant, since indication contemplates relevant; pleaded surviving, where, settled amount seeFoster, likely barred res judicata, limitations run, 1261. reasons 19,supra, unrelated unable judgment. 343 text, precedent, tradition, I "for conclusion imposes obligations finance support litigation." 384-385 (concurring opinion). Likewise, Constitution courts" concerning national security requests. Notwithstanding Appeals' characterize differently, 2000) (characterizing "when suit"), decide implicated reason, concur

Category: 7