Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffstatuteprecedentmotionmotion to dismiss
lawsuitplaintiffdefendantprecedentappealmotionmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Al Jabari v. Chertoff
View Case »
Janvier v. U.S.
View Case »
Hassine v. Johnson
View Case »
Soriano-Vino v. Holder
View Case »
Sevoian v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lawton v. Republic of Iraq

Facts

The plaintiffs, Oklahoma citizens or former citizens, were either survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995, or had lost loved ones in the bombing. They brought suit against the Republic of Iraq, alleging that Iraq provided material support to the individuals responsible for the bombing through its alleged agent, Ramzi Youssef. The plaintiffs sought to hold Iraq liable under the federal Anti-Terrorism Act, asserting several causes of action.

The plaintiffs, Oklahoma citizens or former Oklahoma citizens who are either survivors of the Murrah Building bombing of April 19, 1995, or who lost loved ones in the bombing, have brought this lawsuit against the defendant, the Republic of Iraq, asserting several causes of action arising out of the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Issue

Whether the plaintiffs could maintain their claim against the Republic of Iraq under the federal Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C.S. 2333.

The remaining issue was whether plaintiffs could maintain their claim pursuant to the federal Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C.S. 2333.

Rule

A plain reading of 18 U.S.C.S. 2337 indicates that the Anti-Terrorism Act bars 2333 claims against foreign states, as supported by the legislative history of 2337.

A plain reading of 2337 indicates that the ATA bars 2333 claims against foreign states.

Analysis

The court analyzed the legislative history of 2337, which prohibits civil actions against foreign states for international terrorism, maintaining the status quo in accordance with the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The court found that the plaintiffs' claims under 2333 were barred because the statute explicitly excludes actions against foreign states. The court also noted that while some precedent suggested otherwise, it found those interpretations unpersuasive.

The court noted precedent from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that held to the contrary, but the court found this holding unpersuasive in light of the plain text of 2337, its legislative history, and the decisions of other members within the district.

Conclusion

The court granted the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim under the Anti-Terrorism Act against the Republic of Iraq.

Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' 2333 claim because it does not state a claim under of the ATA is GRANTED.

Who won?

The Republic of Iraq prevailed in the case because the court determined that the plaintiffs could not state a claim under the Anti-Terrorism Act against a foreign state.

The defendant argues that dismissal is required here because 'the ATA never has — and does not now — provide any ground whatsoever upon which the Court may grant any relief to Plaintiffs against the Republic of Iraq.'

You must be