Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain

Supreme Court of the United States · 2004 · Federal Courts

Federal Tort Claims ActAlien Tort StatuteFederal common lawCustomary international lawSovereign immunityFTCAATSforeign country exception

Facts

After DEA agent Camarena-Salazar was tortured and murdered in Mexico, DEA officials came to believe that Alvarez, a Mexican physician, had participated by prolonging the agent's life during the interrogation. When efforts to secure Alvarez's presence through Mexico failed, the DEA approved a plan in which Mexican nationals, including Sosa, abducted Alvarez from Mexico, held him overnight, and flew him to Texas, where federal officers arrested him. Alvarez was later acquitted at trial and then sued the United States under the FTCA for false arrest and Sosa under the ATS for violating the law of nations. The Ninth Circuit held for Alvarez on both theories, relying on domestic DEA planning for the FTCA claim and on a purported international norm against arbitrary arrest and detention for the ATS claim.

Issue

Whether Alvarez's abduction from Mexico supports a damages claim against the United States under the FTCA despite the foreign country exception, and whether Alvarez may recover from Sosa under the ATS for an alleged violation of the law of nations based on arbitrary arrest and detention. More broadly, the case asks how far courts may go in recognizing claims under the ATS.

Rule

The FTCA's foreign country exception, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(k), bars all claims based on any injury suffered in a foreign country, regardless of where the tortious act or omission occurred. The ATS is a jurisdictional statute that does not itself create causes of action, but federal courts may recognize only a narrow class of claims based on present-day international norms that are accepted by the civilized world and defined with a specificity comparable to the historical 18th-century paradigms; a single illegal detention of less than a day followed by transfer to lawful authorities and prompt arraignment does not meet that standard.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Agents of the Federal Wildlife Inspection Service in Denver drafted an operation plan directing local contractors in Peru to seize Mateo Ibarra for questioning about smuggling. The contractors detained Ibarra for six hours in Lima, and he later sued the United States under the FTCA, alleging the wrongful planning occurred in Colorado.

Is Ibarra's FTCA claim most likely barred?

Explanation. The majority rejected the headquarters doctrine. Under the FTCA, the foreign country exception bars all claims based on injury suffered in a foreign country, regardless of where the tortious act or omission occurred. Domestic planning in Denver does not avoid the exception when the injury-producing detention occurred in Peru.