Arar v. Ashcroft

Last updated
Arar v. Ashcroft
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case nameMaher ARAR v. John ASHCROFT, formerly Attorney General of the United States; Larry D. Thompson, formerly Acting Deputy Attorney General; Tom Ridge, formerly Secretary for Homeland Security; James W. Ziglar, formerly Commissioner for Immigration and Naturalization Services; J. Scott Blackman, formerly Regional Director of the Eastern Regional Office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service; Paula Corrigan, Regional Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Edward J. McElroy, formerly District Director of Immigration and Naturalization Services for New York District and now District Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Robert Mueller, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and John Does 1-10, Federal Bureau of Investigation and/or Immigration and Naturalization Service Agents, Defendants.
ArguedNovember 9, 2007
RearguedDecember 9, 2008
DecidedNovember 2, 2009
Citation(s)Panel: 532 F.3d 157
En banc: 585 F.3d 559
Case history
Prior history414 F. Supp. 2d 250 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingEn banc: Dennis Jacobs, Joseph M. McLaughlin, Guido Calabresi, José A. Cabranes, Rosemary S. Pooler, Robert D. Sack, Sonia Sotomayor, Barrington Daniels Parker Jr., Reena Raggi, Richard C. Wesley, Peter W. Hall, Debra Ann Livingston
Panel:
Case opinions
MajorityJacobs, joined by McLaughlin, Cabranes, Raggi, Wesley, Hall, Livingston
DissentSack, joined by Calabresi, Pooler, Parker
DissentParker, joined by Calabresi, Pooler, Sack
DissentPooler, joined by Calabresi, Sack, Parker
DissentCalabresi, joined by Pooler, Sack, Parker

Arar v. Ashcroft, 585 F.3d 559 (2d. Cir. 2009), [1] was a lawsuit brought by Maher Arar against the United States and various U.S. officials pursuant to the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), [2] and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed Arar's complaint due to lack of personal jurisdiction and national security and foreign policy considerations. [3] This ruling was ultimately upheld by a divided en banc panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. [1]

Contents

Background

Maher Arar was a Canadian citizen who was deported to Syria by the U.S. government. In Syria, he was tortured, forced to falsely confess, and released after one year without being charged.

Arar sought a declaratory judgment that defendants' conduct violated his "constitutional, civil, and international human rights," as well as compensatory and punitive damages for the statutory and constitutional violations. [4]

Case

In January 2004, Arar announced that he would be suing then-American Attorney-General John Ashcroft over his treatment. [5]

The Center for Constitutional Rights brought the suit Arar v. Ashcroft against former Attorney General John Ashcroft, then-FBI Director Robert Mueller, and then-Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, as well as numerous U.S. immigration officials including Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner James W. Ziglar. It charged the defendants violated Arar's constitutional right to due process; his right to choose a country of removal other than one in which he would be tortured, as guaranteed under the Torture Victims Protection Act; and his rights under international law. [6]

The suit charged that Arar's Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated when he was confined without access to an attorney or the court system, both domestically before being rendered, and while detained by the Syrian government, whose actions were complicit with the U.S. Additionally, the Attorney General and INS officials who carried out his deportation also likely violated his right to due process by recklessly subjecting him to torture at the hands of a foreign government that they had every reason to believe would carry out abusive interrogation.

Further, Arar filed a claim under the Torture Victims Protection Act, adopted by the U.S. Congress in 1992, which allows a victim of torture by an individual of a foreign government to bring suit against that actor in U.S. Court. Arar's claim under the Act against Ashcroft and the INS directors was based upon their complicity in bringing about the torture he suffered. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

In its denial of Arar's petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court upheld the 2nd Circuit's en banc dismissal the case against the named defendants. [7]

Timeline

January 22, 2004 – The case was filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

January 18, 2005 – The U.S. government moved to dismiss the case by asserting the "state secrets" privilege. The government claimed that the reason Arar was deemed a member of Al Qaeda and sent to Syria, instead of Canada, are "state secrets."

February 16, 2006 – Judge David G. Trager issued a memorandum and order dismissing the TVPA, torture, and detention claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Fifth Amendment claim for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants. [3] Judge Trager found that national security and foreign policy considerations prevented him from holding the officials liable for carrying out an extraordinary rendition even if such conduct violates our treaty obligations or customary international law. [3]

September 12, 2006 – Arar filed a Notice of Appeal in the Second Circuit.

December 12, 2006 – Attorneys at the Center for Constitutional Rights filed an appeal in the Second Circuit on behalf of Arar.

November 9, 2007 – The appeal was argued before the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

June 30, 2008 – The majority opinion found that adjudicating Arar's claims would interfere with national security and foreign policy and that as a foreigner who had not been formally admitted to the U.S., Arar had no constitutional due process rights with respect to the government's interference with his access to a lawyer. This was decided by a three judge panel by a 2–1 vote. [8] [9] The court reversed the district court and ruled Arar had shown a prima facie showing sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over Thompson, Ashcroft, and Mueller, but upheld the dismissal on its merits. [8]

August 12, 2008 – The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sua sponte issued an order that the case would be reheard en banc.

December 9, 2008 – En banc hearing was held. [9]

November 2, 2009 - The 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals, in a 7-4 decision, upheld the ruling by the district court. [1]

June 14, 2010 - The Supreme Court of the United States denied Arar's petition for certiorari. [7]

Related Research Articles

Maher Arar is a telecommunications engineer with dual Syrian and Canadian citizenship who has resided in Canada since 1987.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alien Tort Statute</span> US legislation

The Alien Tort Statute, also called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), is a section in the United States Code that gives federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits filed by foreign nationals for torts committed in violation of international law. It was first introduced by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and is one of the oldest federal laws still in effect in the U.S.

Golan v. Holder, 565 U.S. 302 (2012), was a Supreme Court case that dealt with copyright and the public domain. It held that the "limited time" language of the United States Constitution's Copyright Clause does not preclude the extension of copyright protections to works previously in the public domain.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">José A. Cabranes</span> US senior federal appeals judge

José Alberto Cabranes is an American lawyer who serves as a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and a former presiding judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review ("FISCR"). Formerly a practicing lawyer, government official, and law teacher, he was the first Puerto Rican appointed to a federal judgeship in the continental United States (1979).

<i>Filártiga v. Peña-Irala</i> United States court case

Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876, was a landmark case in United States and international law. It set the precedent for United States federal courts to punish non-American citizens for tortious acts committed outside the United States that were in violation of public international law or any treaties to which the United States is a party. It thus extends the jurisdiction of United States courts to tortious acts committed around the world. The case was decided by a panel of judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit consisting of judges Wilfred Feinberg, Irving Kaufman, and Amalya Lyle Kearse.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Center for Constitutional Rights</span> U.S. nonprofit organization

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is a progressive non-profit legal advocacy organization based in New York City, New York, in the United States. It was founded in 1966 by Arthur Kinoy, William Kunstler and others particularly to support activists in the implementation of civil rights legislation and to achieve social justice.

Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, the government had failed to show a compelling interest in prosecuting religious adherents for drinking a sacramental tea containing a Schedule I controlled substance. After the federal government seized its sacramental tea, the União do Vegetal (UDV), the New Mexican branch of a Brazilian church that imbibes ayahuasca in its services, sued, claiming the seizure was illegal, and sought to ensure future importation of the tea for religious use. The church won a preliminary injunction from the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, which was affirmed on appeal.

<i>Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co.</i>

Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola, 578 F.3d 1252, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the dismissal of a case filed by Colombian trade union Sinaltrainal against Coca-Cola in a Miami district court, demanding monetary compensation of $500 million under the Alien Tort Claims Act for the deaths of three workers in Colombia.

Robert David Sack is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Rosemary S. Pooler is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Dennis Jacobs is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas L. Ambro</span> American judge

Thomas Lee Ambro is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Voting rights of United States citizens who live in Puerto Rico, like the voting rights of residents of other United States territories, differ from those of United States citizens in each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia. Residents of Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories do not have voting representation in the United States Congress, and are not entitled to electoral votes for president. The United States Constitution grants congressional voting representation to U.S. states, which Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories are not, specifying that members of Congress shall be elected by direct popular vote and that the president and the vice president shall be elected by electors chosen by the states.

Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Ruhal Ahmed, and Jamal Al-Harith, four former Guantánamo Bay detainees, filed suit in 2004 in the United States District Court in Washington, DC against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. They charged that illegal interrogation tactics were permitted to be used against them by Secretary Rumsfeld and the military chain of command. The plaintiffs each sought seek compensatory damages for torture and arbitrary detention while being held at Guantánamo.

Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court determined, by a vote of 4-2, that non-U.S. citizens detained in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks cannot recover monetary damages from high level federal officials for the conditions of their confinement. The case was consolidated with Hastey v. Abbasi, and Ashcroft v. Abbasi. It was argued on January 18, 2017.

<i>Baker v. Wade</i> U.S. court case on sodomy

Baker v. Wade 563 F.Supp 1121, rev'd 769 F.2nd 289 cert denied 478 US 1022 (1986) is a federal lawsuit challenging the legality of the sodomy law of the state of Texas. Plaintiff Donald Baker contended that the law violated his rights to privacy and equal protection. After a victory at trial, an appellate court reversed the lower court's decision and in the wake of its decision in Bowers v. Hardwick the Supreme Court of the United States refused to review it.

Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859, was a federal lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska and decided on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. It challenged the federal constitutionality of Nebraska Initiative Measure 416, a 2000 ballot initiative that amended the Nebraska Constitution to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages, civil unions, and other same-sex relationships.

<i>United States v. Kilbride</i>

United States v. Kilbride, 584 F.3d 1240 is a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejecting an appeal from two individuals convicted of violating the Can Spam Act and United States obscenity law. The defendants were appealing convictions on 8 counts from the District Court of Arizona for distributing pornographic spam via email. The second count which the defendants were found guilty of involved the falsification of the "From" field of email headers, which is illegal to do multiple times in commercial settings under 18 USC § 1037(a)(3). The case is particularly notable because of the majority opinion on obscenity, in which Judge Fletcher writes an argument endorsing the use of a national community obscenity standard for the internet.

Hernandez v. Mesa was a pair of United States Supreme Court cases in which the court held that the precedent established under the 1971 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents decision did not extend to claims based on cross-border shootings.

<i>Arce v. García</i>

Arce v. García, 434 F.3d 1254, is a landmark Eleventh Circuit case brought by three Salvadoran plaintiffs under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA). These claims were brought under the doctrine of command responsibility against two high-ranking Salvadoran military personnel who ordered and carried out grave human rights abuses over the course of the country’s twelve year civil war.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Arar v. Ashcroft, 585F.3d559 (2d Cir.2009).
  2. 28 U.S.C.   § 1350.
  3. 1 2 3 Arar v. Ashcroft, 414F. Supp. 2d250 (E.D.N.Y.2006).
  4. Arar v. Ashcroft et al. (2nd Cir), 06-4216-cv, at pg. 5
  5. "Arar launches lawsuit against U.S. government". CBC News. 2004-01-22. Archived from the original on December 1, 2005.
  6. "Arar v. Ashcroft et al".
  7. 1 2 "Order List: 560 U.S." (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. 2010-06-14. p. 9. Retrieved 2013-04-03.
  8. 1 2 Arar v. Ashcroft, 532F.3d157 (2008).
  9. 1 2 Weiser, Benjamin (2008-12-09). "Appeals Court Hears Case of Canadian Citizen Sent by U.S. to Syria". The New York Times.