CACI files a further motion to dismiss based on the Supreme Court decisions Egbert v. Boule, Biden v. Texas, and Torres v. Texas Dep't of Public Safety. We file our opposition on August 10, 2022, and CACI files its reply on August 18, 2022.

Plaintiffs file their opposition on August 20, 2021, arguing that the "touch and concern" test in Kiobel, and the courts' application of it to this case, remain good law post-Nestlé, and that the plaintiffs' claims of aiding and abetting and conspiracy to commit torture, war crimes, and cruel treatment are a permissible domestic application of the ATS. CACI files its reply on September 2, 2021.

In her June 25, 2018 opinion, Judge Brinkema denies CACI's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' ATS claims, finding that Jesner v. Arab Bank only curtails ATS jurisdiction over foreign corporations. Judge Brinkema further finds that adjudication of the Abu Ghraib torture survivors' claims against a U.S. corporation raises no separation-of-powers or foreign relations concerns.

CACI files a motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, asserting that the plaintiffs' claims raise political questions the judiciary cannot answer, on November 21, 2014. Plaintiffs file their opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 19, 2014, arguing that CACI was not under plenary military control, that hearing claims that private contractor CACI acted unlawfully does not implicate sensitive military decisions, and that there are judicially manageable standards in place, including to assess CACI’s conduct against the War Crimes and Anti-Torture statutes. CACI files its reply on January 2, 2015. Oral argument is heard on February 6, 2015. 

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacates the district court's judgment and remands all the plaintiffs' claims for further proceedings on June 30, 2014.  The court holds that the case satisfies the Kiobel “touch and concern” test, finding that torture and other human rights violations committed by a U.S. corporation at a U.S.-controlled prison in a conspiracy with U.S. soldiers can be heard in a U.S. court under the ATS.

Plaintiffs file their opening appeal brief with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on October 29, 2013. Plaintiffs argue that their claims, including war crimes and torture, brought against a U.S. corporation that U.S. military investigators had determined in 2004 conspired with court-martialed U.S. soldiers in “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” of detainees at Abu Ghraib in U.S.-occupied Iraq “touch and concern” the United States.  Six amicus briefs are filed in support of plaintiffs on November 5, 2013 by retired military officers; past United Nations Special Rapporteurs on Torture and current Rapporteur Juan Méndez; a group of human rights survivors who successfully sought redress in U.S. courts under the ATS, including Dolly Filártiga, plaintiff in the first modern use of the ATS to obtain accountability for human rights abuses; a group of civil procedure professors; international law and civil procedure scholars; and historians of international law. All argue that Al Shimari is not only permitted under Kiobel, but also that international law requires the U.S. to provide a forum for seeking accountability and redress for the torture and other serious human rights violations at Abu Ghraib.  CACI files its opening appeal brief on December 2, 2013.  Plaintiffs file their reply brief on December 16, 2013.

The court hears CACI’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Alien Tort Statute claims in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum Co., as well as to dismiss three of the plaintiffs' common law claims, on May 10, 2013. Judge Lee dismisses the plaintiffs' case on June 26, 2013, finding that the Alien Tort Statute cannot apply to violations occurring outside the United States, and that the remaining common law claims are barred because Iraqi law applies.  The district court narrowly interprets the “presumption against extraterritorial application” of the ATS set forth in Kiobel to foreclose claims arising in Iraq, disregarding the fact that CACI is a U.S.-based corporation, it is alleged to have conspired with U.S. soldiers to commit war crimes that were punished in U.S. courts martials, and the torture and war crimes occurred at a time when the United States exercised total jurisdiction and control over Abu Ghraib prison.  The Supreme Court held in Kiobel that the presumption could be displaced in cases that “touch and concern” the United States “with sufficient force.”

CACI files a motion to dismiss CCR's ATS claims of war crimes, torture, and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment on the basis of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum on April 24, 2013. CCR files our opposition on May 3, 2013, and CACI files its reply on May 8, 2013.

The court hears CACI's motion to dismiss the three Baghdad-based plaintiffs on the grounds that are unable to appear in the U.S. for their depositions. The men had been granted visas to travel to the U.S. in February, but were prevented for unknown reasons from boarding their flight to the U.S. in March. CACI files its motion on April 5, 2013. The court hears argument at a motion hearing on April 12, 2013. CCR files our opposition on May 6, 2013. CACI files a supplemental memo in support of the motion for sanctions on May 22, 2013, and CCR files our opposition on May 24, 2013. The motion remains pending when Judge Lee issues his June 26, 2013 decision, and as CACI did not seek plaintiffs' depositions when discovery reopened in 2014, the issue is moot.

On March 19, 2013, Judge Lee grants CACI's motion for reconsideration of the 2008 order denying partial summary judgment, vacating the 2008 order and dismissing three of CCR's common law claims in the second amended complaint without prejudice.

CCR discloses expert reports on issues including what acts constitute torture; the duty of care owed to detainees under international humanitarian law; the significance of the physical, mental and emotional injuries alleged from the perspective of Islamic religious and legal teachings; and theories of social-psychological behavior in a prison setting such as Abu Ghraib.

Plaintiffs file their second amended complaint.

At the conclusion of the motion hearing, Judge Lee reinstates all ATS claims of war crimes, torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

The en banc panel, in an 11-3 decision, issues an order dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remanding the case to the district court, in order to allow fact-finding to proceed.

In November 2011, just as briefing is beginning for the en banc rehearing in the Fourth Circuit, CACI files a motion for 1292(b) certification of the district court's 2009 order denying its motion to dismiss.  Plaintiffs file their opposition to the motion on November 16, 2011, and CACI files its reply on the same date.  The district court denies the motion on November 22, 2011, affirming the plaintiffs' argument that it does not have jurisdiction over the case, as it is currently before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the Fourth Circuit reverses the district court and orders the case be dismissed.  Judges Paul V. Niemeyer and Dennis W. Shedd find the court has jurisdiction, and dismiss the case under a theory of “battlefield preemption.” Judge Robert B. King dissents, finding that the court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal, and that the state law claims cannot be preempted.

Defendants file their opening brief in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 5, 2010.  In May 2010, private military contractor KBR is granted leave to file an amicus brief.  Plaintiffs file their response on June 14, 2010.  Defendants file their reply on July 1, 2010.  Judges Paul Niemeyer, Dennis W. Shedd and Robert B. King of the Fourth Circuit hear argument on October 26, 2010.

Judge Lee denies the defendants' motion to dismiss, in part. In denying the motion to dismiss, Judge Lee rejects CACI’s argument that the case presents a nonjusticiable political question; that government contractor interrogators are entitled to derivative absolute immunity; that the claims are preempted through a government contractor defense claimed under the “combatant activities exception” to the Federal Tort Claims Act; and that the claims of respondent superior and conspiracy liability are properly pled. Judge Lee grants CACI’s motion in regard to the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), finding the ATS does not provide a sufficient basis to exercise jurisdiction for war crimes, torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment against government contractor civilian interrogators.

Defendants file a motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum based on the Senate Armed Services Committee Report in support of their motion to dismiss on December 19, 2008.  Plaintiffs file their response on January 2, 2009 and defendants file their reply on January 8, 2009.  Judge Lee issues an order granting defendants' motion on January 14, 2009.

Defendants file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 2, 2008. Plaintiffs file their opposition on October 16, 2008.  Defendants file their reply on October 22, 2008.  A hearing is held before District Court Judge Gerald Bruce Lee on October 24, 2008. Plaintiffs file a motion for leave to file a memorandum rebutting CACI’s factual misrepresentations on October 27, 2008, to which the defendants respond on October 29, 2008.  Plaintiffs file their reply on November 3, 2008.

Plaintiffs file an amended complaint against CACI International, Inc. and CACI Premier Technology, Inc.

The court grants defendants' motion to change venue. The case is transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia and assigned to Judge Gerald Bruce Lee.