Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Opati v. Republic of Sudan

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Opati v. Republic of Sudan
Term: 2019
Important Dates
Argument: February 24, 2020
Decided: May 18, 2020
Outcome
Vacated and remanded
Vote
8-0
Majority
Neil Gorsuch • Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan


Opati v. Republic of Sudan is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on February 24, 2020, during the court's October 2019-2020 term. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It concerned the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and questioned if the Act prohibited a punitive damages award against Sudan for its role in embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

The court vacated the decision of the D.C. Circuit in an 8-0 ruling. Justice Brett Kavanaugh recused himself from the case. The court held punitive damages are permissible for federal claims under the FSIA against foreign states for terrorist activities that occurred before the passage of the law's current version.[1] Click here for more information.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: In 1998, al Qaeda bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing over 200 people and injuring thousands. In 2001 and the following years, various plaintiffs, including the Opati plaintiffs, sued Sudan for materially supporting the bombings and argued the bombings were "extrajudicial killings" under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Sudan denied the allegations. In 2009, Sudan stopped responding to or participating in the litigation. In 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued final judgments awarding more than $10.2 billion in damages against Sudan. Sudan appealed the cases. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated the punitive damages awarded.[2] The Opati plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the court to clarify whether "the FSIA may be applied retroactively to impose punitive damages on a state sponsor of terrorism."[3]
  • The issue: Whether, consistent with this Court's decision in Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004), the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies retroactively; thereby permitting recovery of punitive damages under 28 U.S.C. § l605A(c) against foreign states for terrorist activities occurring prior to the passage of the current version of the statute.[4]
  • The outcome: The court vacated the D.C. Circuit's ruling in an 8-0 opinion and remanded the case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not partake in the decision. The court held punitive damages are permissible for federal claims under the FSIA.[1]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • May 18, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's decision and remanded the case.
    • February 24, 2020: Oral argument
    • June 28, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • March 2, 2018: Monicah Okoba Opati, the petitioner, filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • July 28, 2017: The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling but vacated awards of punitive damages.

    Background

    Bombings

    From 1991 to 1996, the terrorist group al Qaeda maintained an operations base in Sudan, from which it launched terrorist cells in Kenya and Tanzania. On August 7, 1998, al Qaeda bombed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing over 200 people and injuring thousands.[2]

    Litigation

    In 2001, victims of the attack or their legal representatives filed various lawsuits against Sudan, arguing the bombings were "extrajudicial killings" under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The plaintiffs also alleged Sudan materially supported the bombings by sheltering and protecting al Qaeda in the 1990s. Various plaintiffs continued to sue Sudan in the following years, including the Opati plaintiffs, who filed suit in 2012.[2]

    Sudan argued it was immune under the FSIA and questioned the plaintiffs' ability to prove it had materially supported al Qaeda and the bombings. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case but allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint, which the plaintiffs did. The court then denied Sudan's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In 2009, Sudan's counsel withdrew, leaving Sudan with no representation. Sudan did not respond to or participate in litigation moving forward until 2014.[2] In 2011, the district court ruled Sudan was liable for materially supporting the bombings.[2]

    Punitive damages ruling

    In 2012, the Opati plaintiffs sued Sudan. The district court allowed the lawsuit to move forward, despite the expiration of the 10-year limitation period from the date of the bombings. In 2014, the court issued final judgments for the various plaintiffs, awarding more than $10.2 billion in damages against Sudan. Sudan appealed the cases, arguing the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and saying the statute of limitations barred the Opati plaintiffs from bringing claims against Sudan. The district court denied Sudan's motion to vacate.[2]

    On appeal, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held the district court had subject matter jurisdiction and authorized plaintiffs to continue to press their claims but vacated the punitive damages awarded.[2]

    The Opati plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the court to clarify whether "the FSIA may be applied retroactively to impose punitive damages on a state sponsor of terrorism."[3]

    Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

    Congress passed the FSIA in 1976. The Act held that foreign states are immune from lawsuits in federal and state courts, with exceptions. One of those exceptions was a terrorism exception Congress added in 1996. The terrorism exception allows plaintiffs to sue foreign countries who have committed or supported terrorist acts and who the U.S. State Department designated as state sponsors of terror. As originally enacted, the FSIA barred foreign countries from being subject to punitive damages.[1]

    Congress amended the FSIA in 2008, moving the terrorism exception from §1605(a)(7) of the FSIA to a new section of U.S. Code, 28 U. S. C. §1605A. The move thereby removed the terrorism exception from the FSIA's baseline punitive damages bar. §1605A(c) also authorized punitive damages to certain plaintiffs. Congress also allowed existing lawsuits to be treated as if they were filed under §1605A(c) and allowed plaintiffs to file new lawsuits to claim benefits under §1605A.[1]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:

    Questions presented:

    Whether, consistent with this Court's decision in Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004), the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies retroactively; thereby permitting recovery of punitive damages under 28 U.S.C. § l605A(c) against foreign states for terrorist activities occurring prior to the passage of the current version of the statute.[4]

    Outcome

    In a unanimous 8-0 opinion (Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not participate), the court vacated the judgment of the D.C. Circuit, holding punitive damages are permissible for federal claims under the FSIA (28 U. S. C. § 1605A(c)). Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote:

    “ Congress was as clear as it could have been when it authorized plaintiffs to seek and win punitive damages for past conduct using §1065A(c)’s new federal cause of action. After all, in §1083(a), Congress created a federal cause of action that expressly allows suits for damages that “may include economic damages, solatium, pain and suffering, and punitive damages.” ... Put another way, Congress proceeded in two equally evident steps: (1) It expressly authorized punitive damages under a new cause of action; and (2) it explicitly made that new cause of action available to remedy certain past acts of terrorism. [5] ”

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[6]



    Transcript

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Supreme Court of the United States, Opati v. Republic of Sudan, decided May 18, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Owens v. Republic of Sudan, decided July 28, 2017
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Opati v. Republic of Sudan: "Petition for a writ of certiorari," accessed July 3, 2019
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Opati v. Republic of Sudan: "Questions presented," accessed July 3, 2019
    5. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed March 2, 2020
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Opati_v._Republic_of_Sudan&oldid=8891846"