To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
On November 27, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Ahmed Salem Bin Ali Jaber v. United States in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit dismissed a lawsuit brought by the families of two men allegedly killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in 2012. The families sought “a declaratory judgment stating their family members were killed in the course of a U.S. drone attack in violation of international law governing the use of force, the Torture Victim Protection Act (‘TVPA’), and the Alien Tort Statute (‘ATS’).” The D.C. Circuit Court held that the claims are nonjusticiable under the political question doctrine and, citing the Court’s 2010 opinion in El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries v. United States, stated, “Under the political question doctrine, the foreign target of a military strike cannot challenge in court the wisdom of [that] military action taken by the United States. Despite their efforts to characterize the case differently, that is just what the [P]laintiffs have asked us to do. The district court’s dismissal of their claims is [a]ffirmed.” Judge Janice Rogers Brown, who wrote the opinion for the Court, goes on to note in a separate concurring opinion that while it is reasonable that the courts not second-guess an Executive’s decision about a military response to a singular threat, “it’s doctrine, however, seems a wholly inadequate response to an executive decision—deployed through the CIA/JSOC targeted killing program—implementing a standard operating procedure that will be replicated hundreds if not thousands of times.” She ends by stating, “The Executive and Congress must establish a clear policy for drone strikes and precise avenues for accountability.”