Iraqi Detainees Can't Sue CACI, Titan for Alleged Abuse

A federal appeals court has ruled that former Iraqi detainees who were allegedly abused at the Abu Ghraib prison cannot pursue their claims against contractors L-3 Communications Titan Corp. and CACI.

The District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the contractors were operating under military control at the time of the alleged abuse and therefore could not be sued.

The 2-1 decision, issued as a joint ruling in two separate suits, affirms a lower court holding in favor of Titan and reverses a ruling against CACI.

Background

In their suits the detainees raised common-law claims against the contractors for assault and battery, wrongful death, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The plaintiffs claimed that they or their relatives were subject to abuse and torture by the contractors' employee translators after being forcibly detained by the U.S. military at Abu Ghraib.

Both Titan and CACI asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for summary judgment rulings in their favor in each case.

The companies said the claims should be dismissed based on the combatant-activities exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(j).

The law bars suits against the government for claims arising from the military's combatant activities during wartime. The defendant contractors had argued that the exception applies to them as well, as an extension of the government contractor defense.

The defense provides that state law tort claims against a contractor are preempted when uniquely federal interests are involved and a conflict exists between federal interests and state regulation.

Titan and CACI had argued that the wartime treatment of prisoners involves a uniquely federal interest. They said state law regulation of such activity through tort suits would create a conflict with the federal interest in maintaining unencumbered military action.

The companies said they should be protected by the government contractor defense because federal law does not permit alien plaintiffs to bring suit against contractors for injuries suffered in overseas combat where the contractors' employees are under U.S. military control.

The Lower Court Ruling

U.S. District Judge James Robertson said the combatant-activities exception protects the military's chain of command. The exception will preempt common-law claims against contractors only to the extent necessary to protect military decisions from state law regulation, he ruled.

The judge said the extent of the military's control over a contractor is important when determining whether the exception applies.

When a contractor's employees are under the direct command and exclusive control of the military to the point that they are functionally serving as soldiers, preemption ensures that the workers do not have to decide between following orders or facing a lawsuit, he said.

Judge Robertson said Titan demonstrated that its translators were fully integrated into the military and worked under the direct command and exclusive control of military officials.

Titan is entitled to the protection of the combatant-activities exception/government contract defense, the judge ruled.

He said the evidence regarding CACI's interrogators showed that the employees operated under both military control and corporate direction.

CACI employees were subject to a dual chain of command, he said.

The judge held that he could not find, at that stage of the litigation, that the federal interest underlying the combatant-activities exception required the preemption of the plaintiffs' state tort claims.

A jury would have to determine the facts regarding the military's control over CACI's workers, he said.

After issuing the ruling the judge allowed the plaintiffs and CACI to take an immediate interlocutory appeal to the D.C. Circuit.

The plaintiffs said the decision in favor of Titan was in error, and CACI sought a reversal of the decision denying it summary judgment.

The Appellate Decision

Senior Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman, joined by Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, said the lower court properly focused on the chain of command and the extent of integration between the military and the contractors' workers.

The judge said, however, that he did not agree with the "exclusive operational control" test used by the lower court.

Judge Silberman said CACI was under a dual chain of command, but this did not mean it was not under military control.

He said the fact that the company's employees reported to civilian supervisors as well as to the military did not lessen the degree to which the workers were integrated into a military mission.

The judge said that as a result the lower court ruling regarding Titan was correct and that the decision regarding CACI should be reversed.

Judge Merrick Garland dissented, saying he would have allowed the plaintiffs to sue the contractors.

He said the contractors were not soldiers or government employees and that subjecting them to tort liability would not interfere with U.S. foreign policy or the government's ability to wage war.

To comment, ask questions or contribute articles, contact West.Andrews.Editor@ThomsonReuters.com.