Bey v. Trump
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:20-cv-05574
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Bey v. Trump, Judge Ramos dismissed Bey’s slavery-reparations complaint because the defendants were immune or the claims were frivolous.
Messiah Ali Bey and the groups and descendants of enslaved people for whom he said he was seeking relief; the defendants were not required to defend the claims because the complaint was dismissed.
What happened
In Bey v. Trump, Messiah Ali Bey, representing himself, sued Donald J. Trump and the Estate of Abraham Lincoln. He sought reparations and other relief for Moorish-Americans and other descendants of enslaved people, including trillions of dollars in damages and various changes involving slavery, nationality, treaties, and government policy.
Bey invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction and referred to the Thirteenth Amendment, a treaty, United Nations declarations, federal statutes, federal criminal laws, copyright law, and state tort law. The opinion states that his claims against Trump and Lincoln’s estate concerned actions taken in their official presidential capacities, and that he did not show that he had completed the required administrative process for tort claims against the federal government.
Judge Edgardo Ramos dismissed the complaint. He held that Trump and Lincoln’s estate were protected by absolute immunity for official presidential acts, and that claims against the United States were barred by sovereign immunity because the required administrative process had not been completed. The court also declined to allow an amended complaint and denied fee-free appeal status.
The detailed version
- Bey v. Trump · No. 1:20-cv-05574
- Edgardo Ramos
- July 27, 2020
Background
Messiah Ali Bey filed this action without a lawyer and paid the filing fee. He described himself as a private attorney general acting on behalf of the Moorish Sons and Daughters of Light International Institute, the Moorish-American Society, and Moorish-Americans generally. He sued Donald J. Trump, doing business as the United States, and the Estate of Abraham Lincoln.
Bey sought reparations and other relief concerning the history of slavery in the United States, beginning in 1619, and the economic disparity he said continues to result from slavery. He sought trillions of dollars in damages, as well as meetings and negotiations involving Moorish-Americans, changes concerning nationality and birthrights, recognition of the Moroccan Treaty of Peace and Friendship, a restitution agreement, abolition of slavery, and correction of a 2009 apology for slavery.
The complaint referred to federal-question and diversity jurisdiction and asserted or purported to assert claims under the Thirteenth Amendment, the Moroccan Treaty of Peace and Friendship 1787–1836, United Nations declarations, unspecified federal statutes, federal criminal statutes, a copyright-related work identified in the complaint, and state tort law.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that it could dismiss a complaint as frivolous or for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction even though Bey had paid the filing fee. It also stated that it was required to read a filing submitted without a lawyer liberally and to interpret it as raising the strongest claims reasonably suggested by the allegations.
Presidential immunity. The court held that the claims against President Trump and the Estate of President Lincoln arose from acts performed in their official capacities as President of the United States. It stated that the President is absolutely immune from damages claims based on official acts. The court therefore dismissed those claims as barred by absolute immunity and as frivolous.
Sovereign immunity. The court also dismissed any claims against the United States. Sovereign immunity generally prevents federal courts from hearing suits against the federal government unless immunity has been waived. The court explained that the Federal Tort Claims Act provides a waiver for certain tort claims, but requires a claimant first to submit an administrative claim to the appropriate federal agency and receive a final written determination. The opinion stated that there was no indication Bey had completed that administrative process. It therefore dismissed any claims against the federal government as barred by sovereign immunity.
Leave to amend. The court stated that an opportunity to amend is generally given to a self-represented plaintiff when defects might be corrected, but is not required when amendment would be futile. Because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment, the court declined to grant leave to amend.
Disposition
The court dismissed Bey’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Bey and record service on the docket. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.