## Facts

- Plaintiffs, acting as personal representatives of estates, sued senior U.S. officials in their individual capacities for alleged roles in U.S. drone strikes in Yemen in 2011.
- A September 30, 2011 drone strike intentionally targeted and killed Anwar Al-Aulaqi, a U.S. citizen alleged to be a key leader of al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula; Samir Khan, a U.S. citizen in the same vehicle, was also killed.
- An October 14, 2011 drone strike aimed at a different target killed Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi, Anwar’s 16-year-old U.S.-citizen son.
- Plaintiffs alleged the killings occurred without judicial process and under executive decisionmaking tied to post-9/11 military authorities and a targeted-killing program.
- Plaintiffs sought damages and declaratory relief for alleged constitutional violations stemming from the deaths.

## Issues

1. Whether a Bivens damages remedy is available against high-level federal officials for alleged constitutional violations arising from overseas drone strikes that killed U.S. citizens.
2. Whether the alleged killings stated actionable Fourth Amendment claims for unreasonable seizure.
3. Whether the alleged killings stated actionable Fifth Amendment due process claims, including for bystanders and for an intentionally targeted U.S. citizen.
4. Whether plaintiffs stated a viable Bill of Attainder claim based on executive placement of a citizen on a “kill list.”

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the action in full.
- The court declined to recognize a Bivens remedy, holding that special factors counseled hesitation in extending Bivens to overseas lethal-force and national-security decisionmaking.
- The court dismissed the Fourth Amendment claims, concluding the allegations did not establish a cognizable “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment in this context.
- The court dismissed the Fifth Amendment claims for Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi and Samir Khan, reasoning their deaths as unintended bystanders alleged, at most, negligence rather than a substantive due process violation.
- As to Anwar Al-Aulaqi, the court treated the due process allegations as more substantial because he was intentionally targeted, but held the claim still could not proceed as a Bivens damages action.
- The court rejected the Bill of Attainder theory because the challenged conduct was executive action and did not fit the constitutional definition of a legislative punishment without trial.

## Legal Principles

- Courts generally will not imply a new Bivens damages remedy where “special factors” indicate the matter should be left to the political branches, particularly in areas of national security, foreign affairs, and military operations.
- Extending Bivens to review overseas targeting decisions risks judicial intrusion into executive and military planning and deliberation, raising separation-of-powers concerns.
- Fourth Amendment “seizure” doctrine does not automatically translate to overseas lethal-force operations; absent a cognizable seizure theory, an unreasonable-seizure claim fails.
- Substantive due process does not ordinarily constitutionalize negligence; unintended collateral deaths alleged as unanticipated bystander casualties do not, without more, state a substantive due process violation.
- The Bill of Attainder Clause addresses legislative punishment of specified persons without judicial trial; executive targeting decisions are not a bill of attainder.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed claims seeking to hold senior federal officials personally liable for constitutional violations arising from overseas drone strikes, chiefly because it refused to extend Bivens into national-security and military targeting decisions and found plaintiffs’ constitutional theories otherwise non-actionable on the pleaded facts.


Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta, 35 F. Supp. 3d 56 (D.D.C. 2014)