The US Supreme Court building 900183
ACLU/SC Presses Critical International Human Rights Case to U.S. Supreme Court
On March 30, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument in the case of Alvarez-Machain v. U.S. The case is likely to be one of the most charged, high profile international law cases to be decided by the Court in many years. The Court will be asked to weigh the fundamental question of whether a person who is illegally kidnapped by private bounty hunters acting at the request of U.S. officials has a right to hold the kidnappers and the U.S. government accountable for these illegal actions. Beyond Dr. Alvarez' case, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) may be used to bring international human rights claims in federal courts, including claims against U.S. companies for their complicity in human rights violations.
"What is at stake is the ability of vulnerable communities to seek redress for egregious human rights violations such as sexual slavery, forced labor, and human trafficking inflicted by unscrupulous persons, governments and corporations," said Ranjana Natarajan, staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California.
"The Alvarez case will have tremendous impact on the ability of victims of human rights violations to bring claims in federal court under the Alien Tort Claims Act," said Paul Hoffman, former legal director for the ACLU of Southern California who has been litigating the Alvarez case since 1990. "Every circuit court in the United States has found ATCA is available for human rights victims, just as the lower courts in Dr. Alvarez' case decided."
The Bush Administration, through the Justice Department, has asked the Court to rule that the Alien Tort Claims Act, passed as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, is not available to provide remedies for victims of human rights violations and is, in fact, a dead letter in modern times. Backed by major U.S. corporations, the Administration argues that ACTA has no present viability and is only a jurisdictional statute that must await further action by Congress before plaintiffs may bring international human rights claims.
For this reason, the Alvarez case has also become the focus of international human rights groups seeking to hold governments and, in particular, corporations accountable for illegal actions undertaken in other countries.
In 1990, Dr. Humberto Alvarez-Machain was abducted from his office at gunpoint, without legal authority, by a group of bounty hunters working on behalf of Drug Enforcement Administration officials in the United States. Alvarez had been charged with complicity in the murder of DEA agent Enrique Camareno in 1985.
The abduction was condemned around the world, with Mexico issuing formal diplomatic protests and demands for the extradition of the DEA agents responsible for the kidnapping. The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California represented Dr. Alvarez in seeking dismissal of the charges filed against him because of the illegality of the kidnapping. The charges against Alvarez were dismissed based on the violation of the U.S.-Mexico Extradition Treaty. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the charges, but in June of 1992 the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 that the abduction was not in violation of the extradition treaty, because the treaty did not explicitly ban abductions. The Court's decision was widely condemned around the world, leading President Clinton to issue an apology and a statement that the United States would not engage in such conduct again.
The case returned to the District Court, where Judge Edward Rafeedie granted a motion for acquittal after finding that the government's case was based on "hunches" and "the wildest speculation." Soon after, the ACLU/SC filed a complaint for damages against those responsible for the abduction.
Eventually, Judge Stephen Wilson granted the ACLU/SC's motion for summary judgment under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) against one of the kidnappers, Francisco Sosa, for violating Dr. Alvarez' rights under international law. He found that abducting a person from his country without legal authority constituted arbitrary arrest under international human rights law. Both sides appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where a three-judge panel affirmed the judgment in Alvarez' favor and found that Alvarez could pursue a false arrest claim against the United States under the circumstances described. An en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit, in a 6-5 vote, essentially affirmed the previous panel's ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court accepted the petitions for cert. and is scheduled to hear the case on March 30, 2004.
Hoffman has described the upcoming Supreme Court arguments as "one of the most important questions to come before the court in the area of international law in more than a generation."
"For more than a decade, the ACLU has litigated this case to advance the principle of the rule of law in response to this raw exercise of power by low level federal officials," said Hoffman. "This case has always been about defending the rule of law and human rights, and now the Supreme Court will have to decide whether to affirm these basic principles or defer to the extraordinary claims of executive power made by the Bush Administration in this case."
The ACLU of Southern California will be supported by a wide range of human rights and civil liberties organizations, international jurists, scholars, historians, and victims of human rights violations. Hoffman is working with ACLU staff attorney Ranjana Natarajan and a team of volunteer ACLU lawyers, including Ralph Steinhardt, Dilan Esper, Doug Mirell, and Alan Castillo. A decision is expected by June of 2004.
