## Facts

- Orlando Letelier, a former Chilean foreign minister and ambassador, was killed in Washington, D.C. on September 21, 1976 when a bomb placed under his car detonated; Ronni Karpen Moffitt was also killed, and Michael Moffitt was injured.
- The plaintiffs (Letelier’s family and representatives, and Moffitt and Moffitt’s representatives) alleged the bombing was carried out by individual defendants acting in concert and at the direction and with the aid of the Republic of Chile and its intelligence service (DINA/CNI).
- Plaintiffs asserted claims including wrongful death, assault and battery, negligent use of explosives, conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985), and violations of international law.
- Chile was served but did not initially appear; default was entered.
- Before proceeding to default judgment, the court examined sua sponte whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction and whether Chile was immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA).

## Issues

1. Whether the FSIA supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over tort claims arising from deaths and injuries occurring in the United States allegedly caused by Chilean agents acting on behalf of Chile.
2. Whether the FSIA’s noncommercial tort exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5), applies to an alleged state-sponsored political assassination on U.S. soil or is limited to “private” torts.
3. Whether the discretionary-function proviso in § 1605(a)(5) preserves Chile’s immunity for the alleged conduct.
4. Whether the act of state doctrine bars adjudication of claims based on an alleged state-ordered bombing in Washington, D.C.

## Decision

- The court held it had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a) because Chile was not entitled to immunity under § 1605(a)(5).
- The court held § 1605(a)(5) was not confined to “private” torts and covered the alleged state-sponsored car bombing that caused injury and death in the United States.
- The court held the discretionary-function proviso did not apply because there is no protected discretion to commit conduct illegal under U.S. law and international law, such as an assassination by bombing on U.S. territory.
- The court rejected Chile’s act of state argument at this phase because the alleged conduct occurred in the United States and was not the type of territorial sovereign act the doctrine shields.
- The action was permitted to proceed against Chile.

## Legal Principles

- The FSIA provides the exclusive framework for jurisdiction and immunity in civil actions against foreign states in U.S. courts.
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a), federal jurisdiction exists when a claim falls within an FSIA exception to immunity.
- The noncommercial tort exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5), removes immunity for money-damages claims for personal injury or death occurring in the United States and caused by a tortious act or omission of a foreign state or its officials.
- Courts will not narrow § 1605(a)(5) by adding an unstated limitation that excludes politically motivated or policy-directed torts when the statutory text applies and Congress provided specific carve-outs elsewhere.
- The discretionary-function proviso in § 1605(a)(5) protects legitimate policy choices but does not immunize conduct that is unlawful, including extrajudicial killing or assassination on U.S. soil.
- The act of state doctrine generally concerns official acts within a foreign sovereign’s territory and does not bar adjudication of alleged tortious conduct committed in the United States.

## Conclusion

The court held that Chile was not immune under the FSIA for an alleged state-sponsored bombing in Washington, D.C., finding the noncommercial tort exception applied, the discretionary-function proviso did not protect illegal conduct, and the act of state doctrine did not bar the suit, allowing the case to proceed against Chile.


Letelier v. Republic of Chile, 488 F. Supp. 665 (D.D.C. 1980)