Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain
| Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 30, 2004 Decided June 29, 2004 |
|
| Full case name | Jose Francisco Sosa v. Humberto Alvarez-Machain, et al. |
| Docket nos. | 03-339 |
| Citations | 542 U.S. 692 (more)
124 S. Ct. 2739; 159 L. Ed. 2d 718; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4763; 72 U.S.L.W. 4660; 158 Oil & Gas Rep. 601; 2004 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 515
|
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Prior history | On writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Souter, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas |
| Concurrence | Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, Thomas |
| Concurrence | Ginsburg, joined by Breyer |
| Concurrence | Breyer |
| Laws applied | |
| Alien Tort Claims Act | |
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Alien Tort Statute.
A U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) special agent was kidnapped and murdered by a Mexican drug cartel in 1985. After an investigation, the DEA concluded that Humberto Álvarez-Machaín had participated in the murder. A warrant for his arrest was issued by a federal district court. The DEA, however, was unable to convince Mexico to extradite Álvarez-Machaín, so they hired several Mexican nationals to capture him and bring him back to the United States. His subsequent trial was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which found that the government could try a person who had been forcibly abducted, but that the abduction itself might violate international law and provide grounds for a civil suit. When the case went back to the district court for trial, Álvarez-Machaín was found not guilty for lack of evidence.
Álvarez-Machaín then filed a group of civil suits in federal court against the United States and the Mexican nationals who had captured him under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which allows the federal government to be sued on tort claims, and the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which permits suits against foreign citizens in American courts. The government argued that the FTCA applied only to claims arising from actions that took place in the United States and therefore did not cover Álvarez-Machaín's case because the arrest took place in Mexico. Further, the government and the Mexican nationals argued that the ATS gave federal courts jurisdiction to hear tort claims against foreign citizens, but did not allow private individuals to bring those suits.
...
Wikipedia