## Facts

- Plaintiffs were Yemeni relatives of Salem bin Ali Jaber (an imam) and Waleed bin Ali Jaber (a local police officer) who were killed in a 2012 U.S. drone strike in Khashamir, Yemen.
- After Salem delivered a sermon criticizing al-Qaeda and other extremists, three local extremists sought to meet with him; Waleed accompanied Salem to the meeting.
- A U.S. drone fired four Hellfire missiles at the group, killing Salem, Waleed, and the three men.
- Plaintiffs alleged the attack was a “signature strike,” based on behavioral patterns rather than individualized identification.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief that U.S. officials committed extrajudicial killings in violation of international law and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), and that customary international law claims were actionable under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), with compensatory damages sought as a consequence.
- The United States moved to dismiss, arguing (among other grounds) nonjusticiability under the political question doctrine.
- The district court found next-friend standing satisfied but dismissed under the political question doctrine; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether claims challenging the legality of a specific U.S. drone strike abroad under international law, the TVPA, and the ATS are barred by the political question doctrine.
2. Whether adjudicating the requested declaratory relief would require courts to assess military and foreign-affairs judgments constitutionally committed to the political branches and lacking judicially manageable standards.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal of the complaint as nonjusticiable under the political question doctrine.
- The court held that resolving plaintiffs’ claims would require judicial evaluation of operational and policy determinations inherent in lethal targeting decisions overseas.
- The court declined to reach the merits of whether the strike violated international law, the TVPA, or the ATS.

## Legal Principles

- Under the political question doctrine (as described in Baker v. Carr), courts will not decide disputes where adjudication is constitutionally committed to the political branches, where there are no judicially manageable standards, or where resolution would require nonjudicial policy determinations.
- Challenges to overseas uses of lethal force may be nonjusticiable when they require courts to assess threat imminence, capture feasibility, proportionality, and related military and diplomatic judgments.
- The existence of statutory causes of action (including TVPA and ATS theories) does not, by itself, prevent dismissal where the requested adjudication would intrude on war-making and foreign-relations decisions assigned to the political branches.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that a suit seeking to have a federal court declare a particular overseas drone strike unlawful could not be adjudicated without second-guessing military and foreign-policy determinations, and it therefore affirmed dismissal on political question grounds without addressing the underlying legality of the strike.


Bin Ali Jaber v. United States, 861 F.3d 241 (D.C. Cir. 2017)