## Facts

- The United States contracted with CACI Premier Technology, Inc. to provide civilian interrogation services at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq during 2003–2004.
- Four Iraqi nationals, formerly detained at Abu Ghraib, alleged that CACI-employed interrogators participated in severe physical and psychological abuse during their detention.
- The alleged conduct included beatings, stress positions, sleep deprivation, threats, and other abusive tactics, characterized as torture, war crimes, and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
- Plaintiffs sued in federal court under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and asserted related state common-law tort claims, including assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring and supervision.
- After jurisdictional discovery on justiciability, the district court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding the claims were barred by the political question doctrine because they arose from detention and interrogation in a military setting.

## Issues

1. Whether the political question doctrine deprives federal courts of jurisdiction over ATS and state tort claims against a military contractor for alleged detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib.
2. Whether alleged conduct that was unlawful when committed remains justiciable even if it occurred in connection with military operations or under military control.
3. Whether the district court was required to conduct a claim-by-claim analysis focused on unlawfulness, actual military control, and the need to evaluate sensitive military judgments.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded.
- The court held that alleged contractor conduct that was unlawful when committed is justiciable regardless of whether it occurred under actual military control.
- The political question doctrine may bar review only for conduct that was not unlawful when committed and that was undertaken under actual military control or would require evaluating sensitive military judgments.
- The district court erred by treating the case categorically as a political question rather than separating potentially unlawful acts from any remaining conduct that might trigger nonjusticiability.

## Legal Principles

- The political question doctrine is narrow and does not automatically bar suits against military contractors merely because claims arise in a war zone or implicate national security.
- Claims alleging conduct unlawful when committed (including alleged torture, war crimes, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment) are generally justiciable because courts can determine legality without deciding policy committed to the political branches.
- Nonjusticiability may apply only where adjudication would require second-guessing sensitive military judgments and the contractor conduct was not unlawful when committed and occurred under actual military control.
- Courts must apply a fact-specific, claim-by-claim political question analysis rather than dismissing wholesale based on the military context.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit reinstated the action by vacating the political-question dismissal, directing the district court to reassess jurisdiction using a framework that preserves judicial review of alleged unlawful contractor abuse while limiting nonjusticiability to claims requiring evaluation of sensitive military judgments under actual military control.


Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc., 840 F.3d 147 (4th Cir. 2016)