Case law

Youming Jin v. Ministry of State Security

557 F. Supp. 2d 131 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 3, 2008

The court determined that the plaintiffs alleged facts that, if established, were sufficient to deprive the defendants of immunity under the commercial activity exception of FSIA. Mem. Op. … The Claim of Contractual Interference Qualifies as Commercial Activity This court initially ruled that the allegations raised in Claim IX, “Malicious Interference with an Existing Contractual Relationship” qualified as commercial

Metropolitan Washington Chapter, Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. v. District of Columbia

57 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 14, 2014

The Workforce Intermediary Establishment and Reform of First Source Amendment Act of 2011 The Council of the District of Columbia passed the Workforce Intermediary Establishment and Reform of First Source … They allege that the real issue with employment in the District is not a shortage of jobs, but rather a shortage of qualified applicants. See id.

Peterson v. Royal Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

332 F. Supp. 2d 189 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 23, 2004

Plaintiff also attempts to establish that GOSI itself is engaged in commercial activity in the United States. … But section 1603(d), Nelson , and Weltover , however, all clearly define commercial activity by its nature rather than its purpose.

Cobell v. Babbitt

52 F. Supp. 2d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 1999

Therefore, plaintiffs have established substantive rights against the government, potentially appropriate remedies, and an applicable waiver of sovereign immunity. … Mitchell II clearly held that the Native American trust in issue, established by statute and the pervasive federal control over the Native American lands, placed certain fiduciary duties upon the government.

Bartel v. Federal Aviation Administration

617 F. Supp. 190 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 18, 1985

Moreover, were the Court to find Vincent’s actions to constitute a First Amendment violation, he clearly would enjoy qualified immunity against plaintiffs claims since he was performing discretionary functions, see text, … infra, and since this newly recognized right would not have been clearly established at the time Vincent assertedly violated it.

In the Matter of the FORT TOTTEN METRORAIL CASES ARISING OUT OF the EVENTS OF JUNE 22, 2009

895 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 5, 2012

And because the plaintiffs are not precluded as a matter of law from establishing Alstom’s liability, there is no need to evaluate WMATA’s argument that it is not barred from establishing Alstom’s liability to the plaintiffs … Subsection (c), however, just as clearly limits the maintenance of insurance until acceptance of the work performed under the contract.

Malewicz v. City of Amsterdam

517 F. Supp. 2d 322 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 27, 2007

“FSIA establishes a specific framework for determining whether a sovereign is immune from suit and consequently whether the district court has jurisdiction.” Phoenix Consulting Inc. v. … “Once the foreign state has produced such prima facie evidence of immunity, the burden of going forward would shift to the plaintiff to produce evidence establishing that the foreign state is not entitled to immunity.”

Kelley v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

67 F. Supp. 3d 240 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 15, 2014

A federal employee “is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a . . . constitutional right that was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” Plumhoff v. … Ct. at 2024 (holding that officials were entitled to qualified immunity where there was no “controlling case or a robust consensus of cases . . . that could be said to have clearly established the unconstitutionality” of

Marsh v. Hollander

339 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 9, 2004

Statements made in the course of judicial proceedings are protected by absolute immunity from defamation suits. … Plaintiff contends that he never gave his consent to publication of the statement regarding an overpayment and that Defendant has not established implied consent.

Terry v. Architect of the Capitol

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 14, 2021

. § 1831(c)(1), which directs the defendant to establish its pay policy, also does not waive sovereign immunity over claims regarding environmental hazard pay. … As discussed above, a waiver of sovereign immunity must be clearly expressed in statutory text, see Lane, 518 U.S. at 192, therefore, the defendant’s statement in its supplemental brief does not affect the Court’s conclusion

Larsen v. United States Navy

346 F. Supp. 2d 122 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 18, 2004

The government is not immune to that request. 5 U.S.C. § 702 . … See Compl. at 26 (requesting a court order allowing the plaintiffs, “if otherwise qualified, the opportunity to be commissioned as Navy chaplains”); cf.

Idea Public Charter School v. District of Columbia

374 F. Supp. 2d 158 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 21, 2005

The purpose of requesting the evaluation was to determine whether Victor qualified for a special education as provided for under IDEA. … Congress clearly intended the safeguards afforded under section 1415(f) to apply to disputes between parents and the agency responsible for the child’s education.

Vann v. Kempthorne

467 F. Supp. 2d 56 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 2006

What these courts apparently failed to consider, however, is that Congress clearly indicated its intent to abrogate the Cherokee Nation’s immunity with respect to violations of the Thirteenth Amendment as evidenced by the … Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 861 (9th Cir.1986) (concluding that “exhaustion was pointless because tribal court jurisdiction clearly was foreclosed by the sovereign immunity of the United States”).

Travelers Insurance v. SCM Corp.

600 F. Supp. 493 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 21, 1984

They are clearly not, with respect to the transaction at issue, “customers” of telephone service. … Clearly, one of the central themes of the doctrine of absolute immunity, as enunciated in Barr , is the protection of policymaking decisions from possible attack in the Courts.

Cassaday v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 19, 2026

“A dispute does not fall within the subject-matter jurisdiction of federal courts unless it qualifies as a ‘case’ or ‘controversy’ within the meaning of article III, and it cannot so qualify unless the plaintiff has suffered … Cassaday fails to allege facts sufficient to establish standing, this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear his claims. Accordingly, the court will grant Mr.

United States v. Emspak

95 F. Supp. 1012 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 31, 1951

The procedure before the committee is informal, but precedent has fully established the practice of informing a witness of" his rights of immunity at the hearing. … This type of immunity statute is clearly broader than the phrase “No testimony given by a witness” which is used in R.S. § 859.

Turan Petroleum Inc. v. Ministry of Oil and Gas of Kazakhstan

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 26, 2019

In this case, the plaintiffs’ allegations fail to establish that the Ministry expressly or implicitly consented to waiving its immunity. … because it cannot be said that these actions “clearly and unambiguously” express the Ministry’s intent to waive its immunity, accord Gutch, 255 F.

Rouse v. Berry

680 F. Supp. 2d 233 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 29, 2010

Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), that high officials entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense directed plaintiff’s detention purposefully on account of his race and religion in … violation of clearly established law under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Estate of Abdallah El Deek v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 2025

But under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), the defendants are still presumptively immune from suit unless the plaintiffs can show that an exception to immunity applies. See 28 U.S.C. § 1604. … Iran and MOIS therefore lack immunity from these claims. 6  The FSIA imposes two additional requirements to establish subject matter jurisdiction.

Walen v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2019

Court of Appeals reasoned that the District would be immune from suit “for its failure to establish a traffic control device at an intersection” and that D.C. … Only “where the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes contributory negligence so clearly that no other inference can reasonably be drawn,” should contributory negligence be decided as