Honda v. Vieira

Background

Marcal Honda, appearing without a lawyer, brought claims against the government of Brazil for alleged violations of his fundamental civil and human rights. The defendant was Mauro Vieira, identified in the caption as Brazil’s ambassador to the United Nations.

Honda alleged that the United States had provided financial aid to Brazil since 1999 to combat drug trafficking, money laundering, and organized crime. He said he asked Brazil’s president for an accounting and investigation concerning possible misuse of $23 million, but received no response. He also alleged that Brazilian agencies refused to provide information about projects and the use of U.S. funds, and that Brazilian government agents retaliated against him and interfered with his efforts before U.S. and international bodies.

Honda sought to gather evidence for a lawsuit against Brazil aimed at stopping alleged human-rights violations against him, his family members, and friends. The opinion also states that he had made a Freedom of Information Act request to the U.S. Department of State, which was still pending.

Sovereign immunity

The court applied the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a federal law that generally makes foreign states immune from lawsuits in U.S. courts unless a statutory exception applies. The court explained that the Act provides the exclusive basis for jurisdiction over foreign states in federal and state courts.

The court considered exceptions involving commercial activity in the United States, certain tort claims involving injury in the United States, and rights in real property located in the United States. It concluded that Honda was not pursuing a claim within any of those exceptions. Because no exception applied, the court held that the defendant was immune from suit on Honda’s claims.

Other issue and disposition

The court stated that, even if the defendant were not immune, Honda would lack standing to sue to pursue policy objectives because the requested relief would not benefit him more directly than it would benefit the public generally. The court did not rely on that point as the stated basis for dismissal.

Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed Honda’s complaint based on sovereign immunity. The court declined to give him permission to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status.