Tort- Government contractor liable for abuses at Abu Ghraib

Where a jury found a government contractor liable for torture committed against Iraqi citizens, who alleged they were tortured while detained at Abu Ghraib Prison during the Iraq War, the award was affirmed.

Background

Appellees are Iraqi citizens who allege they were tortured while detained at Abu Ghraib Prison during the Iraq War. A jury found CACI Premier Technology Inc. liable for conspiracy to commit torture and conspiracy to commit cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, or CIDT, under the Alien Tort Statute, or ATS.

ATS

CACI argues that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the claims are impermissibly extraterritorial. According to CACI, all conduct relevant to the focus of the ATS occurred in Iraq. However, conduct in Iraq’s detention centers at the end of 2003 may properly be considered within the “territorial jurisdiction” of the United States, because the United States had “complete jurisdiction and control” over Abu Ghraib in late 2003.

Second and alternatively, even absent congressional intent for a statute to apply extraterritorially, a statute may still be applied to conduct—like piracy or torture—occurring outside “the territorial jurisdiction of the United States or any other country” when it does not implicate “the territory of another sovereign.” Finally, even if conduct occurring in Iraq was extraterritorial for the purposes of the presumption, this court is not convinced that the district court erred in concluding that sufficient conduct relevant to the focus of the ATS occurred domestically.

Claims

CACI next argues that the district court erred in recognizing plaintiffs’ causes of action. The court disagrees.

First, although the Courts of Appeals are so far united in finding that “aiding and abetting liability claims may proceed under the ATS,” only the Eleventh Circuit has explicitly addressed conspiracy liability. Expanding on the work of other circuits, which universally permit theories of secondary liability in ATS cases, this court agrees with the Eleventh Circuit that conspiracy liability is also proper under the statute.

After determining that international law has identified a specific controlling norm recognizing liability for conspiracy, “it must be determined further whether allowing this case to proceed under the ATS is a proper exercise of judicial discretion, or instead whether caution requires the political branches to grant specific authority before . . . liability can be imposed.” This court is convinced that this case does not offend the authority of the other branches of government.

Second the Courts of Appeals have taken different approaches to the question of corporate liability, but five justices of the Supreme Court have agreed that “[n]othing in the ATS supplies corporations with special protections against suit.”

Threshold issues

CACI maintains that it is entitled to derivative sovereign immunity. Second, CACI argues that the case is nonjusticiable under the political question doctrine because it requires the court to adjudicate the propriety of military decisions. Third, CACI points to the Federal Tort Claims Act and contends that plaintiffs’ claims are preempted. Fourth, CACI claims the district court erred in failing to dismiss the case due to the existence of state secrets, which impacted CACI’s ability to defend itself. The court finds no reversible error on these questions.

Merits

CACI contends that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the two causes of action, conspiracy to torture and conspiracy to commit CIDT. CACI makes two arguments: (1) that the Antonio Taguba and George Fay official investigation reports into Abu Ghraib were the primary evidence of conspiracy and should not have been admitted and (2) without the reports, the “remaining, admissible evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.”

The district court in this case repeatedly found that the reports had indicia of reliability and trustworthiness and refused to exclude the reports in their entirety. The trial court’s effort here was significant, and it fulfilled its obligation to parse through the voluminous reports and exclude inadmissible portions. CACI has made no showing from which this court could find that “the [district] court’s exercise of discretion, considering the law and the facts, was arbitrary or capricious.”

CACI next argues that plaintiffs’ conspiracy claims were legally insufficient. The court disagrees. CACI’s final attack is that it is entitled either to judgment as a matter of law or a new trial on its affirmative defense under the borrowed servant doctrine. The court again disagrees.

Damages

The jury awarded each plaintiff $3 million in compensatory damages and $11 million in punitive damages, for a total damages award of $42 million, which the district court sustained. CACI argues that the court erred as to both compensatory and punitive damages. The court rejects both arguments.

Conclusion

The jury’s verdict is affirmed in full. Because CACI’s third-party complaint against the United States is barred by sovereign immunity, however, the district court’s judgment on the third-party claims is vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded with instructions.

Dissenting opinion

Quattlebaum, J., dissenting:

We operate under an ordered system of justice that only permits us to act when we have subject matter jurisdiction. And binding Supreme Court precedent makes clear that we lack it here because the plaintiffs’ claims ask us to impermissibly apply the ATS extraterritorially and to impermissibility create new causes of action. Thus, we should reverse the district court’s order denying CACI’s motions for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial. Because the majority does not do so, I respectfully dissent.

Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc., Case No. 25-1043, March 12, 2026. 4th Cir. (Floyd), from EDVA at Alexandria (Brinkema). John Frederick O’Connor Jr. for Appellant. Baher Azmy, Michael Francis Buchanan and Michael Shih for Appellees. VLW 026-2-089. 118 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-2-089
Virginia Lawyers Weekly