El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Company et al. v. United States of America

Court	United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States
Case number	01-731 (RWR)
Decision title	Memorandum Order
Decision date	28 March 2007
Parties	El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Company United States of America
Other names	El-Shifa IV
Categories	Terrorism
Keywords	motion to alter judgment, motion to dismiss, non-justiciable, political question doctrine, sovereign immunity, Terrorism
Links	Memorandum Order
Other countries involved	Sudan

Summary

In August 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden. In retaliation, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on the El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, arguing that it was a base for terrorism. Later, it was proven that the plant had no ties to terrorists. Therefore, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries brought complaints against the United States in the US Court of Federal Claims.

In November 2005, the District Court found that El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries failed to show that the US waived its sovereign immunity regarding the asserted claims. This meant that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the District Court dismissed the complaint.

In March 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff’s motion to alter judgment, in which it sought to the reinstate their defamation and law of nations claims. The District Court based its decision on the fact that the plaintiffs did not adduce any new evidence or arguments to support that an error of law was made during the earlier decision of November 2005.

Procedural history

A lawsuit filed with the US Court of Federal Claims for $50 million in losses was dismissed in March 2003 as non-justiciable based on the US ‘political question doctrine’.

On 11 August 2004, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Another claim was filed seeking damages for negligence and trespass. On 29 November 2005, the District Court of Colombia granted the government’s motion to dismiss the claim based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court found that sovereign immunity barred the claims.

Related developments

On 27 March 2009, the Court of Appeals held that “courts are not a forum for second-guessing the merits of foreign policy and national security decisions” (p. 8), and upheld the District Court’s decision.

On 3 August 2009, the Court of Appeals ordered that its previous judgment be vacated and the case be re-heard by the Court sitting en banc.

On 8 June 2010, the US Court of Appeal (sitting en banc) affirmed the decision of the District Court once again.

In January 2011, the US Supreme Court refused to reconsider the dismissal. See 'Court Won’t Reconsider Sudan Lawsuit Dismissal', CBS News, 18 January 2011.

Legally relevant facts

In August 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden. In retaliation, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on the El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. The attack was justified by the claim that the plant was a base for terrorism. US officials also claimed that the plant was used in the manufacture of chemical weapons. The plaintiffs denied the accusations. It was later proved that the plant had no ties to bin Laden and that only medical products were manufactured at the plant. Having learnt that their initial justifications were false, officials in the Clinton Administration offered new explanations, claiming that the plant owners supported terrorism (p. 1).

After the November 2005 decision of the District Court granted the US Government’s motion to dismiss, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries moved to alter the judgment, seeking the reinstatement of their defamation and law of nations claims (p. 1).

Core legal questions

Can the District Court grant the plaintiff’s motion to alter the judgment?

Specific legal rules and provisions

Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Section 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Court's holding and analysis

The District Court found that a “motion to alter the judgment need not be granted unless there is an intervening change of controlling law, new evidence becomes available, or there is a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice” (p. 2).

The District Court denied the plaintiff’s motion to alter judgment on the grounds that they “do not provide any new arguments or evidence indicating that the court’s dismissal of their defamation and law of nations claims involved a clear error of law” (p. 6).