Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves plaintiffs, former prisoners of war in Iraq and their families, seeking to reinstate a default judgment against the Republic of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqi Intelligence Service. The default judgment was initially issued in 2003 but vacated on appeal by the D.C. Circuit, citing a failure to state a valid cause of action. The plaintiffs argued that Executive Order 13,491 reversed President Bush's waiver of Section 1083 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2008, thus permitting the reinstatement of the judgment. This section had amended the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) to address terrorism-related claims, but President Bush had exercised his authority to waive these provisions for Iraq. The district court, however, upheld that it lacked jurisdiction under the mandate rule to diverge from the appellate court's dismissal, and concluded that the Executive Order did not alter the waiver. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion to reinstate the judgment was denied, maintaining the vacated status of the original judgment.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) Amendmentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Section 1083 of the NDAA amended the FSIA, establishing a new standard for terrorism-related claims but was waived in this instance by presidential authority.
Reasoning: Section 1083 of the NDAA amended the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), establishing a new standard for terrorism-related claims and allowing the President to waive its provisions concerning Iraq.
Effect of Executive Orders on Waiverssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Executive Order 13,491 did not affect the prior waiver of Section 1083 provisions concerning Iraq, as argued by the United States and the Iraqi defendants.
Reasoning: The plaintiffs argued that Executive Order 13,491 rescinded President Bush's prior waiver of Section 1083, allowing the district court to reinstate the judgment. However, both the United States and the Iraqi defendants contended that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion and that the Executive Order did not affect the waiver.
Jurisdiction Under the Mandate Rulesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court lacks jurisdiction to deviate from the appellate court's ruling, which had vacated the judgment.
Reasoning: The court reiterated that under the mandate rule, it lacked the authority to deviate from the appellate court's ruling, which had vacated the judgment and dismissed the complaint without remand.
Waiver Authority Under Section 1083 of the NDAAsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The President's waiver of Section 1083 provisions concerning Iraq remained effective, negating the plaintiffs' argument for reinstating the judgment.
Reasoning: President Bush exercised this authority on January 28, 2008, waiving all provisions of Section 1083 with respect to Iraq.