Case law

Concilio De Salud Integral De Loiza, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

538 F. Supp. 2d 139 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 12, 2008

Sovereign Immunity 1. … States can clearly challenge the Secretary’s decision to withhold FFP, 42 U.S.C. § 1316 (d), and seek judicial review of any unfavorable outcome. 42 U.S.C. § 1316 (a)(3).

Kaplan v. Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran

961 F. Supp. 2d 185 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 20, 2013

Analysis Under these principles, plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to establish standing. … PLAINTIFFS’ FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT CLAIMS FAIL The American plaintiffs assert claims under the updated state-sponsor of terrorism provision of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act against Iran, CBI and

Jungquist v. Sheikh Sultan Bin Khalifa Al Nahyan

940 F. Supp. 312 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 1996

Clearly, Sheikh Khalifa, as the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, would not condone or authorize the payment of moneys through the Abu Dhabi medical program as consideration for a promise from the plaintiff, inter alia, to keep … could fail to establish the occurrence of *319 an act of state.”

Industria Panificadora, S.A. v. United States

763 F. Supp. 1154 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 30, 1991

It is well established that decisions pertaining to national security, such as whether and how to use military forces, are entrusted to the *1160 political branches. CONST. Art. … The reason most frequently advanced for this immunity is the fear that the threat of damage suits would stultify decision-making.

Daniels Cablevision, Inc. v. United States

835 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 16, 1993

Section 10(d) of the 1992 Act removes all immunity for carriage of obscenity. … Congress clearly could have amended the copyright law to provide infringement remedies for cable retransmission of broadcast material.

Majhor v. Kempthorne

518 F. Supp. 2d 221 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 30, 2007

Samoa Opp’n at 4-5, and absolute immunity from suit under § 1983, id. at 10; Hales Mot. at 6-7. … Kerr, 426 U.S. at 403 , 96 S.Ct. 2119 (internal quotation omitted); see also King, 520 F.2d at 1146 (writ of mandamus should issue “only when the duty of the officer to act is clearly established and plainly defined and the

Sharma v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

57 F. Supp. 3d 36 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 17, 2014

The Settlement Agreement clearly provided that plaintiff’s last date on the WMATA premises would be December 31, 2001. Defs.’ Br. at 2. … of immunity by Congress or waiver of immunity by the state or state agency.

Iyengar v. Barnhart

233 F. Supp. 2d 5 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 26, 2002

In this case, there is no dispute about the first factor; plaintiffs have clearly suffered an injury-in-fact by virtue of having been denied SSNs. … Agency for Int’l Dev., 810 F.2d 1236, 1238 (D.C.Cir.1987) (affirming that “otherwise qualified non-applicants may have standing to challenge a disqualifying statute or regulation”) (emphasis added).

Sutherland v. Islamic Republic of Iran

151 F. Supp. 2d 27 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 25, 2001

Foreign Sovereign Immunity 2 The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) grants foreign states immunity from liability in United States courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq. … Thus, the pains normally attendant to being a hostage, most notably the loss of liberty and contact with loved ones, although clearly tortuous within the common meaning of the term, cannot qualify as torture under 28 U.S.C

Entes Industrial Plants Construction and Erection Contracting Co. Inc. v. Kyrgyz Republic

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 22, 2020

The Regulation does not establish the Ministry’s juridical independence nearly as clearly as the enabling statute in DRC did for the FHIS. … But no such rule is established by either of the cited cases. DRC states quite clearly that “this [Banec] exception may rest either on complete domination or ordinary agency principles.” DRC, 71 F. Supp. 3d at 217.

Jordon v. Quander

882 F. Supp. 2d 88 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 9, 2012

Ormand and Shaffer in their official capacities, the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars the claim. … “Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature,” Meyer, 510 U.S. at 475, and absent a waiver of sovereign immunity, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff=s claims for money damages against

Medical Imaging & Technology Alliance v. Library of Congress

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 2023

The result is that the Library does not qualify as an “agency” subject to the APA. … Moreover, judicial review of the Librarian’s actions remains available under the Larson-Dugan doctrine, Clark, 750 F.2d at 102 (“It is well-established that sovereign immunity does not bar suits for specific relief against

Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn II

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 25, 2019

This was because, according to Miers, Harlow had concluded that such aides were, at best, entitled to qualified immunity, notwithstanding the fact that “absolute immunity [for civil damages] extended to legislators, judges … aides are only entitled to qualified immunity.

Smith Thee v. U.S. Secret Service

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 17, 2025

The Court will hereinafter adopt the plaintiff’s spelling of his name for the purposes of this Memorandum Opinion. 2 The plaintiff does not clearly allege Agent Plakas’s agency affiliation. See Compl. at 13. … Cir. 1983) (“Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing jurisdiction . . . and it must appear on the face of the complaint[.]”)).

Doe v. Sessions

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 12, 2018

Supp. 2d 198, 200 (D.D.C. 2006) (“[A] plaintiff must overcome the defense of sovereign immunity in order to establish the jurisdiction necessary to survive a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.”). … Dated: December 12, 2018 RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge qualified immunity, see, e.g., Williamson

La Réunion Aérienne v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

477 F. Supp. 2d 131 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 2007

The State-Sponsored Terrorism Exception As a general rule, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), enacted in 1976, establishes that foreign states (including “a political subdivision of a foreign state or an agency … The immunity waiver provision only requires that the victim (or the claimant) was a U.S. national at the time of the terrorist act, and there is no dispute that the victim decedents so qualified.

Salazar v. District of Columbia

938 F. Supp. 926 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 11, 1996

However, as discussed below, the record clearly establishes that NPA Medicaid applications are not processed in a timely manner. 1. … This evidence clearly establishes a “course deliberately pursued by official policymakers,” which has caused a deprivation of Plaintiffs’ rights under federal law. Cf. Carter v.

Jerez v. Republic of Cuba

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2011

The foreign sovereign immunity defense is only available to an individual sued in his official capacity while the defense of qualified immunity may only be asserted by an individual sued in his personal capacity. Id. … ” but finding that “at the time of seizure it was not possible to establish a business in which the mark could be used and none was established.” ) Further, Jerez stated that the USPTO has a form, PTO-1594, which

Idrogo v. United States Army

18 F. Supp. 2d 25 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 1998

NAGPRA clearly defines “Indian tribe” to mean “any tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community of Indians ... which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States … Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Plaintiffs’ § 1981 claim against the Department of the Army based on principles of sovereign immunity.

Luxepress-Ii Corp. v. Yanukovich

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2020

§ 1605(a)(1), but a court will not find a foreign sovereign waived its immunity unless it “has clearly and unambiguously done so.” World Wide Minerals, Ltd. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, 296 F.3d 1154, 1162 (D.C. … Therefore, the Decree does not “clearly and unambiguously” waive Ukraine’s sovereign immunity. See World Wide Minerals, Ltd., 296 F.3d at 1162.