## Facts

- Gladys M. Lafontant sued Jean-Bertrand Aristide, whom the United States recognized as Haiti’s sitting president, seeking money damages for the alleged extrajudicial killing of her husband, Dr. Roger Lafontant.
- Dr. Lafontant, a Haitian political figure, had been convicted for leading an unsuccessful coup against Aristide and was serving a life sentence in Haiti.
- Dr. Lafontant was killed in a Haitian prison on September 29, 1991, during a later coup that ousted Aristide and forced him into exile.
- The complaint alleged that Haitian soldiers, acting on Aristide’s specific order, shot and killed Dr. Lafontant.
- Aristide moved to dismiss and to quash service based on head-of-state immunity, supported by an official suggestion of immunity submitted by the United States.
- For purposes of the motion, the court assumed the truth of the alleged killing order but addressed only whether a U.S.-recognized head of state could be sued in a U.S. court.

## Issues

1. Whether a sitting, U.S.-recognized foreign head of state is immune from civil suit in U.S. courts for alleged human-rights violations, including an alleged extrajudicial killing ordered while in office.
2. Whether the district court must accept and give effect to the Executive Branch’s official suggestion of head-of-state immunity by quashing service of process and dismissing the action.
3. Whether exile or the existence of competing regimes negates head-of-state immunity when the United States continues to recognize the individual as the lawful head of state.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to quash service of process and dismissed the action.
- It held that Aristide, as the U.S.-recognized head of state of Haiti, was immune from suit in U.S. courts.
- The court treated the Executive Branch’s suggestion of immunity as controlling and declined to exercise jurisdiction despite the seriousness of the allegations.
- The court concluded that Aristide’s exile did not defeat immunity because U.S. recognition persisted.

## Legal Principles

- Head-of-state immunity is a federal common-law doctrine informed by sovereign equality, comity, and separation-of-powers considerations.
- Courts must defer to the Executive Branch’s recognition determinations regarding who qualifies as a foreign head of state and to the Executive’s official suggestion that immunity should be afforded.
- When head-of-state immunity applies, it operates as a threshold bar to the court’s jurisdiction and is not displaced by claims framed under human-rights statutes or international-law norms.
- A recognized head of state may retain immunity while in exile or without de facto control if the United States continues to recognize that person as the legitimate head of state.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the wrongful-death and human-rights claims and quashed service because the United States officially recognized Aristide as Haiti’s sitting head of state and formally urged immunity, requiring judicial deference even where the complaint alleged that the head of state ordered an extrajudicial killing.


Lafontant v. Aristide, 844 F. Supp. 128 (E.D.N.Y. 1994)