Doe v. Bin Laden
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
663 F.3d 64 (2011)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Jane Doe died in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that occurred in the United States. Jane’s executor, John Doe (plaintiff), sued various parties, including the country of Afghanistan (defendant), for the commission of various torts that led to Jane’s death. Afghanistan was seemingly governed by the Taliban. John asserted subject-matter jurisdiction under an exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) known as the noncommercial-tort exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5). Afghanistan moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Afghanistan argued that, to the extent that John’s complaint was predicated on terrorist acts, John had to meet the requirements of the terrorism exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605A. It was uncontested that John could not meet the requirements of § 1605A because Afghanistan was not designated as a state sponsor of terrorism. The district court denied Afghanistan’s motion without prejudice, finding that John’s suit was cognizable under the noncommercial-tort exception rather than the terrorism exception. The court granted limited jurisdictional discovery on specified issues of disputed fact, such as whether the Taliban was acting as a foreign state. Afghanistan appealed the court’s order denying the motion to dismiss.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
