## Facts

- Joseph J. Cicippio, a U.S. national, was abducted in 1986 by Hizbollah, held until 1991, and allegedly beaten and confined in inhumane conditions; Iran allegedly provided material support.
- In 1996, Cicippio and his wife sued Iran under the FSIA terrorism exception (former 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7)) and the Flatow Amendment; Iran defaulted and the district court awarded $30 million.
- In 2001, Cicippio’s adult children and siblings filed a separate action against Iran seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and solatium arising from the hostage taking and alleged torture.
- Iran again failed to appear; default was entered, and plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and to consolidate with the earlier action.
- The district court denied the motions and dismissed the case sua sponte, concluding it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the relatives’ emotional-distress and solatium claims.
- Plaintiffs appealed; the United States participated as amicus, arguing the cited provisions do not create a private cause of action against foreign states.

## Issues

1. Whether former 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) creates a private cause of action against a foreign state for damages arising from hostage taking, torture, or related support.
2. Whether the Flatow Amendment creates a cause of action against foreign states (as opposed to only officials, employees, or agents).
3. If neither provision supplies a cause of action, whether plaintiffs may proceed against a foreign state under § 1605(a)(7) by pleading claims under other applicable substantive law.

## Decision

- The court held that § 1605(a)(7) is jurisdictional only: it removes immunity and confers jurisdiction in defined circumstances but does not create a cause of action.
- The court held that the Flatow Amendment creates liability only for “official[s], employee[s], or agent[s]” of a foreign state, not for the foreign state itself.
- The court rejected the district court’s treatment of the missing cause of action as a subject-matter jurisdiction defect; jurisdiction exists when the terrorism exception applies, but plaintiffs must still plead a substantive claim.
- The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for the district court to determine whether plaintiffs stated viable claims under some other source of law.

## Legal Principles

- FSIA immunity exceptions generally operate as jurisdictional gateways; they do not, without clear statutory language, create substantive causes of action.
- Former 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) lifts immunity for certain terrorism-related injuries but does not itself authorize relief or direct courts to create a federal common-law claim.
- The Flatow Amendment’s express imposition of liability on “official[s], employee[s], or agent[s]” cannot be read to impose liability on the foreign state absent statutory text to that effect.
- When an FSIA exception applies, a plaintiff must identify an independent substantive basis for liability (commonly state law or other applicable law) to obtain damages against a foreign state.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that the FSIA terrorism exception provides jurisdiction by removing sovereign immunity but does not itself supply a cause of action, and that the Flatow Amendment authorizes claims only against individual officials, employees, or agents, not against foreign states; the case was remanded for consideration of any properly pleaded non-statutory causes of action.


Cicippio-Puleo v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 353 F.3d 1024 (D.C. Cir. 2004)