The recent ruling by the Eastern District of Virginia in Al Shimari, et. al. v. CACI highlights the need for further guidance from the Supreme Court—or even better, Congress—regarding the scope and nature of the Alien Tort Statute.
Robert Loeb is a partner in Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe's Supreme Court and Appellate Litigation practice. The former Acting Deputy Director of the Civil Division Appellate Staff at the U.S. Department of Justice, he has handled hundreds of cases before the court of appeals and the Supreme Court. While at DOJ, he served as Special Appellate Counsel for National Security and International Law matters. Posts here express the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, or its clients. This post is for general informational purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
Robert Loeb explains why he filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court about the origins, meaning, and limits of the presumption of regularity.
On Tuesday, a civil action was filed by Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute and seven blocked Twitter users, asserting that President Trump and his staff are violating the First Amendment by blocking users on Twitter based on their viewpoints.
The D.C. Circuit's recent ruling that the political question doctrine bars the adjudication of claims regarding a 2012 U.S. drone strike in Yemen improperly refuses to adjudicate a claim duly enacted by Congress under the Torture Victim Protection Act.
President Trump’s alleged blocking of members of the public on Twitter on what appear to be viewpoint-based considerations, preventing them from reading his tweets and responding to them, raises serious constitutional issues.
Setting aside pondering over the courts' latest rulings on the Executive Order on immigration and refugees, it is helpful to take a step back and recognize that there was never a need for a travel ban or refugee ban in the first place.
The latest CIA torture suit brought by former detainees presents an interesting variation on the typical post-9/11 state secrets cases: this time it is the defendants rather than the plaintiffs who seek to introduce information that the government alleges may harm national security.