Ex-Abu Ghraib detainees lawsuits against CACI, Titan (now L-3)
Sources
Plaintiffs are a group of Iraqis who are former prisoners detained at Abu Ghraib. They filed suit in US court under the Alien Tort Claims Act alleging the companies operating Abu Ghraib participated in torture, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Defendants allege the court lacks jurisdiction because the crimes were committed outside of the US. The case is ongoing.
On 9 June 2004, a group of 256 Iraqis sued CACI International and Titan Corporation (now L-3 Services, part of L-3 Communications) in US federal court (Saleh, et al. V. Titan, et al.) The plaintiffs, former prisoners, allege that the companies directed and participated in torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity, sexual assault, as well as cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. While the plaintiffs were detained at Abu Ghraib they allege that they were raped, repeatedly beaten, detained in isolation, urinated on, prevented from praying and forced to watch family members being tortured. They further allege that the defendants were negligent in the hiring and supervision of their employees in Iraq. The US Government had hired CACI and Titan to provide interrogation and translation services at military prisons in Iraq.
On 10 September 2004, the defendant companies moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it raised a non-justiciable "political question" that cannot be decided by the courts. and that they had immunity as government contractors. Plaintiffs countered that contractor immunity did not apply, as the alleged torture exceeded their contracted duties. In June 2006, the judge denied the motion to dismiss.
In November 2007, the district judge granted summary judgment to Titan/L-3, finding that, unlike CACI, Titan operated solely under military control and thus had government contractor immunity. The court noted that CACI employees were subject to a “dual chain of command” from both CACI and the military, so CACI could not claim government contractor immunity. Both plaintiffs and CACI appealed.
On 11 September 2009, the Court of Appeals agreed with the dismissal of the claims against Titan/L-3. It also stated that CACI’s dual supervision did not override its integration into military operations, also granting it immunity. Plaintiffs petitioned the US Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case in June 2011, leading to the closing of the case.
In Al Shimari v. CACI, on 30 June 2008, four Iraqis previously detained at Abu Ghraib sued CACI International, CACI Premier Technology, in US federal court, alleging the companies participated in torture and other illegal acts. On 18 March 2009, a judge denied CACI’s motion to dismiss in part, which the defendants appealed. On 11 May 2012, the appeals court rejected the appeal, requiring further fact-finding.
On 15 March 2013, the court dismissed the case without prejudice, allowing the plaintiffs to refile a complaint. They filed an amended complaint on 4 April 2013. On 24 April 2013, CACI moved to dismiss under the Supreme Court’s Kiobel v. Shell decision, and on 26 June 2013, the district court dismissed the case, citing lack of jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Claims Act because the incidents happened outside the US, and granting CACI immunity for actions tied to military operations. The plaintiffs appealed, and on 30 June 2014, the Fourth Circuit overturned the dismissal, ruling the case had sufficient US ties to proceed.
On 18 June 2015, the lower court dismissed the case again, declaring it a “political question” that the judiciary does not have power to decide. The plaintiffs appealed, and on 21 October 2016, the Fourth Circuit reinstated the lawsuit, ruling courts could hear cases on illegal acts committed by government contractors. On 28 June 2017, a US court ruled claims for torture, cruel treatment, and war crimes could proceed under the Alien Tort Statute. On 22 September 2017, the court denied CACI’s motion to dismiss filed in July.
In February 2018, a judge ruled CACI could not be directly liable for torture due to insufficient connection between the plaintiffs and the company, but that it could face conspiracy charges because CACI interrogators gave instructions to the military police. The company argued that the court did not have jurisdiction in light of the US Supreme Court decision in Jesner v. Arab Bank which foreclosed Alien Tort Statute jurisdiction over foreign corporations. On 25 June 2018, the court upheld the conspiracy claim, finding no separation-of-powers concerns. On 4 May 2018, the judge authorised pre-trial questioning of Abu Ghraib interrogators, keeping their identities confidential.
On 23 August 2019, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals turned down CACI's attempt to invoke sovereign immunity that would prevent it from being sued.
On 28 June 2021, the US Supreme Court declined to hear CACI’s appeal of a 2019 lower court’s decision. A month later, CACI moved to dismiss the case on the basis of the Supreme Court's decision in Nestlé v. Doe , arguing that the ruling makes it clear that it cannot be held liable for abuses that occurred abroad.
On 31 July 2023, a federal judge from the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria Division) rejected CACI's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The jury trial in this civil action started on 15 April 2024.
On 2 May 2024, the jury’s eighth day of deliberations, a judge declared a mistrial after the jury said it was deadlocked and could not reach a verdict in the trial. The plaintiffs sought a retrial.
On 12 November 2024, a federal jury in Virginia delivered a verdict, holding the government contractor CACI Premier Technology, Inc., liable for its involvement in the torture of three Iraqi men. The jury ordered the contractor to pay $42 million in damages, comprising $3 million in compensatory damages and $11 million in punitive damages to each of the plaintiffs.
On 25 November 2024, CACI moved for a new trial.
On 10 January 2025 the Court denied CACI's motion for judgment as a matter of law or new trial at hearing. CACI appealed this decision.
- "US jury awards $42m to ex-detainees at Iraq's Abu Ghraib'', BBC, 12 November 2024
-"Judge declares mistrial after jury deadlocks in lawsuit filed by former Abu Ghraib prisoners," AP, 3 May 2024
-"Judge Sides With Abu Ghraib Torture Survivors, Refuses to Dismiss Historic Case Against U.S. Military Contractor CACI", Center for Constitutional Rights, 1 Aug 2023
-"Judge rejects military contractor’s effort to toss out Abu Ghraib torture lawsuit", Matthew Barakat, AP, 1 Aug 2023
-US Supreme Court rejects contractor’s Abu Ghraib torture appeal, Reuters, 28 Jun 2021
- "Contractor Must Face Claims Over Abu Ghraib Abuse", Brandi Buchman, Courthouse News, 26 June 2018
- "Abu Ghraib Interrogators May Be Questioned Incognito in Lawsuit", Peter Blumberg, Bloomberg, 9 May 2018
- "Abu Ghraib ex-inmates' lawsuit moves ahead in federal court", Matthew Barakat, Associated Press, 22 Sep 2017
- "Appeals Court Revives Lawsuit by Abu Ghraib Inmates", Matthew Barakat, Associated Press, 21 Oct 2014
- "Abu Ghraib torture lawsuit revived by U.S. appeals court", Jonathan Stempel, Reuters, 30 Jun 2014
- "Iraqis Accuse CACI of War Crimes and Torture", Ryan Abbott, Courthouse News Service, 30 Sep 2013
- "Seeking corporate accountability for crimes at Abu Ghraib", Laura Raymond, Center for Constitutional Rights in Truthout, 29 Apr 2013
- "Judge dismisses core of suit against CACI by Iraqis who say they were tortured at Abu Ghraib", Associated Press, 8 Mar 2013
- "$5M paid to Iraqis over Abu Ghraib", Peter Yost, Associated Press, 8 Jan 2013
- “Appeals court revives Iraqis’ Abu Ghraib suits”, Larry O’Dell, Associated Press, 11 May 2012
- “Abu Ghraib Case Involving Private Contractors Draws Top Court’s Interest”, Greg Stohr, Bloomberg, 4 Oct 2010
- “U.S. Court dismisses Iraqi contractor torture case”, James Vicini, Reuters, 11 Sep 2009
- “CACI Must Face Suit Alleging Torture at Abu Ghraib”, Cary O’Reilly, Bloomberg, 19 Mar 2009
- “Defense contractor claims immunity in Iraq torture”, David Dishneau, Associated Press, 26 Sep 2008
- “Abu Ghraib inmates sue contractors, claim torture” David Dishneau, Associated Press, 1 Jul 2008
- “CACI and Titan Sued Over Iraq Operations”, Renae Merle, Washington Post, 10 Jun 2004
CACI:
- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint, 19 Jul 2017
- CACI Receives Favorable Court Decision, 26 Jan 2010
- CACI responds to Court’s Decision in Iraq lawsuit, 23 Mar 2009
- Statement Regarding Baseless CCR Lawsuit, 7 May 2008
Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) [co-counsel for the plaintiffs]:
- "Abu Ghraib Verdict: Iraqi Torture Survivors Win Landmark Case as Jury Holds Private Contractor CACI Liable", Center for Constitutional Rights, 12 November 2024
- "Private Corporation May be Sued for Role in Abu Ghraib Torture, Judge Rule, Judge Rules", 21 Feb 2018
- "Court Rules Abu Ghraib Survivors' Case of Torture Against Private Military Contractor Can Proceed", 22 Sep 2017
- "Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint", 18 Aug 2017
- "Appellate Court Reinstates Abu Ghraib Torture Lawsuit Against Private Military Contractor", 21 Oct 2016
- "No impunity for corporate torturers at Abu Ghraib, attorneys argue", 6 Feb 2015
- "Abu Ghraib Torture Victims May Sue U.S. Corporation, Appeals Court Rules", 30 Jun 2014
- Saleh et al. v. Titan [case summary, includes links to legal documents]
- Al Shimari v. CACI et al. [case summary, includes links to legal documents]
- Al-Quraishi v. Nakhla & L-3 [case summary, includes links to legal documents]
Court documents:
-US court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, Order Dismissing Appeal, 23 Aug 20219
- US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division: Suhail Najim Abdullah Al Shimari, et al., v. CACI Premier Tech, Inc., [opinion on lack of subject matter jurisdiction on conspiracy claims] 25 June 2018
- US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division: Suhail Najim Abdullah Al Shimari, et al., v. CACI Premier Tech, Inc., [opinion dismissing CACI's direct liability claims for torture] 21 Feb 2018
- US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division: Suhail Najim Abdullah Al Shimari, et al., v. CACI Premier Tech, Inc., 28 Jun 2017 [opinion ruling that the case can proceed]
- US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: Al Shimari, et al. v. CACI, 21 Oct 2016 [opinion reinsating the case]
- US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia: Al Shimari, et al. v. CACI, 18 Jun 2015 [decision dismissing the case]
- US Court of Appeals for the fourth Circuit: [PDF] Al Shimari, et al. v. CACI, et al. - Opinion, 30 Jun 2014
- District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Alexandria division: [PDF] Al Shimari, et al. v. CACI International, et al., 26 Jun 2013 [decision dismissing the case]
- US Court of Appeals for the Fourt Circuit: [PDF] Al Shimari, et al. v. CACI, et al. - Opinion, 11 May 2012
- US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: [PDF] Saleh, et al. v. Titan, et al., 11 Sep 2009 [order dismissing case against Titan/L-3 and CACI]
- US District Court for the District of Columbia: [PDF] Saleh, et al. v. Titan, et al. – Memorandum Order, 6 Nov 2007
- US District Court for the District of Columbia: [PDF] Saleh, et al. v. Titan, et al. – Memorandum Order, 29 Jun 2006
- US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Alexandria Division: [PDF] Al Shimari, et al. v. CACI – Memorandum Order, 18 Mar 2009
- US District Court for the District of Maryland: [PDF] Al-Quraishi, et al. v. Nakhla, et al. – Opinion, 29 Jul 2010