## Facts

- Four Iraqi nationals formerly detained at Abu Ghraib prison sued CACI Premier Technology, Inc., a U.S. defense contractor that supplied interrogators to the U.S. military in Iraq.
- Plaintiffs alleged that, during 2003–2004, CACI personnel participated in, directed, conspired in, or aided and abetted torture and other abuse at the prison’s “hard site.”
- Alleged abuse included beatings, stress positions, electric shocks, threats, and sexual humiliation.
- Plaintiffs were ultimately released without criminal charges.
- The action asserted Alien Tort Statute (ATS) claims and related common-law tort theories, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting.
- After an earlier dismissal on political question grounds, the Fourth Circuit remanded with instructions that contractor conduct “unlawful when committed” is justiciable even if performed under military control.
- On remand, the district court reopened discovery and addressed CACI’s renewed motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the political question doctrine.

## Issues

1. Whether claims against a military contractor for alleged torture and related abuse at a war-zone detention facility present a non-justiciable political question.
2. Under the Fourth Circuit’s remand framework, whether the alleged acts were “unlawful when committed,” making them justiciable regardless of military control.
3. Whether adjudicating the claims would require the court to review sensitive military judgments or lack judicially manageable standards.

## Decision

- The court denied CACI’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held that plaintiffs’ core allegations described conduct that, if proven, was unlawful when committed under clearly established prohibitions on torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
- The court concluded that resolving whether CACI personnel engaged in plainly illegal abuse would not require second-guessing sensitive military judgments.
- The case was permitted to proceed because judicial standards exist to evaluate torture and related war-crimes allegations against a private contractor.

## Legal Principles

- The political question doctrine does not bar adjudication of contractor conduct that was unlawful when committed, even if it occurred in a military setting or under military control.
- Claims requiring evaluation of battlefield strategy, high-level policy choices, or other sensitive military judgments may be non-justiciable; claims focused on categorically prohibited abuse are generally justiciable.
- Courts have judicially manageable standards to assess allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment based on established domestic and international legal prohibitions.
- The presence of military actors or a war-zone context does not, by itself, convert allegations of unlawful acts by private contractors into non-justiciable disputes.

## Conclusion

The court held that former detainees’ ATS and related tort claims against a U.S. contractor for alleged Abu Ghraib torture and abuse were justiciable because the alleged conduct was unlawful when committed and could be adjudicated without evaluating sensitive military judgments.


Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc., 368 F. Supp. 3d 935 (E.D. Va. 2019)