FOR PUBLICATIONUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CYNTHIA CORRIE, on their ownbehalf and as PersonalRepresentatives of Rachel Corrieand her next of kin, including hersiblings; CRAIG CORRIE, on theirown behalf and as PersonalRepresentatives of Rachel Corrieand her next of kin, including her No. 05-36210siblings; MAHMOUD OMAR ALD.C. No.SHO’BI; FATHIYA MUHAMMADCV-05-05192-FDBSULAYMAN FAYED; FAYEZ ALIOPINIONMOHAMMED ABU HUSSEIN; MAJEDARADWAN ABU HUSSEIN; EIDAIBRAHIM SULEIMAN KHALAFALLAH,Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.CATERPILLAR, INC.,Defendant-Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Western District of WashingtonFranklin D. Burgess, District Judge, PresidingArgued and SubmittedJuly 9, 2007—Seattle, WashingtonFiled September 17, 2007Before: Arthur L. Alarcón, Michael Daly Hawkins, andKim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges.Opinion by Judge Wardlaw12485COUNSELGwynne Skinner and Ronald C. Slye, Seattle University, Ron-ald A. Peterson Law Clinic, Seattle, Washington; Maria C.LaHood and Jennifer Green, Center for Constitutional Rights,New York, New York; and Erwin Chemerinsky (argued), forthe plaintiffs-appellants. Robert G. Abrams (argued), Howrey LLP, Washington, D.C.;Joanne E. Caruso, Richard J. Burdge, Jr., and David G.Meyer, Howrey LLP, Los Angeles, California; James L.Magee, Graham & Dunn PLC, Seattle, Washington, for thedefendant-appellee. Ronald J. Bettauer, Deputy Legal Adviser, Department ofState, Jeffrey Buchwoltz, Acting Assistant Attorney General,John McKay, U.S. Attorney, Douglas N. Letter, Robert M.Loeb (argued), Attorneys, Appellate Staff, Department of Jus-tice, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae the United States.Ralph G. Steinhardt, George Washington University LawSchool, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae InternationalLaw Scholars. Marco Simons and Richard L. Herz, Earthrights International,Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae Career Foreign ServiceDiplomats. 12488 CORRIE v. CATERPILLAR, INC.Allan Ides, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, California, foramicus curiae Professors of Constitutional and InternationalLaw. Terry Collingsworth for amicus curiae the International LaborRights Fund. Tyler R. Giannini, Human Rights Program of Harvard LawSchool, Cambridge, Massachusetts, for amicus curiae LawProfessors. Robin S. Conrad and Amar D. Sarwal, National Chamber Lit-igation Center, Inc., Washington, D.C.; Maria Ghazal, Busi-ness Roundtable, Washington, D.C.; Paul R. Friedman, JohnTownsend Rich, and William F. Sheehan, Goodwin ProcterLLP, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae the Chamber ofCommerce of the United States of America and BusinessRoundtable. OPINIONWARDLAW, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs Cynthia and Craig Corrie, Mahmoud Al Sho’bi,Fathiya Muhammad Sulayman Fayed, Fayez Ali MohammedAbu Hussein, Majeda Radwan Abu Hussein, and Eida Ibra-him Suleiman Khalafallah filed this action after their familymembers were killed or injured when the Israeli DefenseForces (“IDF”) demolished homes in the Palestinian Territo-ries using bulldozers manufactured by Caterpillar, Inc., aUnited States corporation. The IDF ordered the bulldozersdirectly from Caterpillar, but the United States governmentpaid for them. The district court dismissed the action underFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding it lackedjurisdiction because, inter alia, the political question doctrineprecludes decision by an Article III court. 12489CORRIE v. CATERPILLAR, INC.Because we agree that plaintiffs’ claims present nonjusti-ciable political questions that deprive the district court of sub-ject matter jurisdiction when construed under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(1), we do not reach the remaining ques-tions presented under state, federal, and international law.Plaintiffs’ action cannot proceed because its resolution wouldrequire the federal judiciary to ask and answer questions thatare committed by the Constitution to the political branches ofour government. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and weaffirm.I. Facts and BackgroundA. The Allegations in the ComplaintBecause this action was dismissed under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(6), we accept all facts alleged in thecomplaint as true and construe them in the light most favor-able to the plaintiffs. Maduka v. Sunrise Hosp., 375 F.3d 909,911 (9th Cir. 2004). Following the Six Day War in 1967, Israel occupied andtook control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Caterpillar isthe world’s leading manufacturer of heavy construction andmining equipment. Among its customers is the IDF, whichsince 1967 has utilized Caterpillar bulldozers to demolishhomes in the Palestinian Territories. According to plaintiffs’complaint, Caterpillar sold the bulldozers to the IDF despiteits actual and constructive notice that the IDF would use themto further its home destruction policy in the Palestinian Terri-tories; a policy plaintiffs contend violates international law.Seventeen members of plaintiffs’ families — sixteen Palestin-ians and one American — were killed or injured in the courseof the demolitions. 12490 CORRIE v. CATERPILLAR, INC.B. Facts Beyond the Complaint1The complaint alleges that Caterpillar sold bulldozers to theIDF, but it does not explain how those bulldozers werefinanced. There is undisputed evidence in the record, how-ever, that the United States government paid for every bull-dozer that Caterpillar transferred to the IDF. Caterpillarsubmitted an affidavit by Frank Weinberg (“Weinberg Decla-ration”), General Manager of Caterpillar’s Defense & FederalProducts division, in which Weinberg states that the UnitedStates government has approved and financed all contractsbetween Israel and Caterpillar dating back to at least 1990,and that Caterpillar “does not sell products to the governmentof Israel in sales that are not approved by the U.S. govern-ment.” Appended to the Weinberg Declaration is a copy of a letterfrom the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (“DSCA”), anarm of the United States Department of Defense, sent in Sep-tember 2001 to the Israeli government and copied to Caterpil-lar (“DSCA letter”). The letter grants “[f]unding approval” forthe Israeli government’s purchase of fifty Caterpillar D9 bull-dozers under the Foreign Military Financing program(“FMF”). Under the FMF, foreign governments enter intocontracts directly with American defense contractors and thenapply to the DSCA for approval of funding on a case-by-casebasis.2 The DSCA letter
View Full Document
Unlocking...