Background
The plaintiffs asserted Alien Tort Statute claims against CACI Premier Technology for conspiracy to commit torture and conspiracy to commit cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. After summary-judgment proceedings and a jury trial, the district court entered judgment in the plaintiffs’ favor. CACI appealed.
The Fourth Circuit initially affirmed the jury verdict and vacated the district court’s judgment concerning CACI’s third-party indemnification complaint against the United States. CACI sought panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. After the Supreme Court decided Cisco Systems Inc. v. Doe I, the Fourth Circuit requested supplemental briefing about that decision’s effect on the case.
The Court’s Holding
On panel rehearing, the Fourth Circuit vacated its prior opinion, reversed the judgment, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice. The court concluded that Cisco had foreclosed judicial creation of Alien Tort Statute causes of action under the framework previously recognized in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain. Because the plaintiffs’ conspiracy claims were not among the historically recognized torts potentially remaining after Cisco, they had to be dismissed.
The court also concluded that CACI’s indemnification claim against the United States was moot because the judgment against CACI had been reversed. It denied as moot both the motion to hold the motion for rehearing en banc in abeyance and the motion for leave to file an amicus brief.
Judge Quattlebaum concurred separately. He emphasized that the plaintiffs had not pleaded any of the three historically recognized offenses discussed in Sosa—violation of safe conducts, infringement of ambassadors’ rights, or piracy—and stated that their claims also could not overcome the presumption against extraterritorial application.
Key Takeaways
- The Fourth Circuit granted panel rehearing and vacated its earlier decision affirming the jury verdict.
- Under Cisco, courts may not recognize new Alien Tort Statute causes of action for international-law violations.
- The case must be dismissed without prejudice, and CACI’s indemnification claim against the United States is moot.
Why It Matters
The ruling applies the Supreme Court’s newly announced restriction on Alien Tort Statute litigation to claims for conspiracy to commit torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. It replaces the Fourth Circuit’s earlier conclusion that those claims were cognizable under Sosa.
The decision also illustrates the immediate effect of an intervening Supreme Court ruling during rehearing: a previously affirmed jury verdict was reversed because the asserted causes of action were no longer judicially cognizable under the governing interpretation of the statute.