Fallahi v. Raisolsadati

Background

Reza Fallahi and other plaintiffs brought claims under the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act against Sayyid Ebrahim Raisolsadati, also known as Ebrahim Raisi. The plaintiffs alleged that Raisi was responsible for their torture or for the torture and extrajudicial killings of their relatives during a 1988 massacre of political prisoners. Raisi was identified in the opinion as the president of Iran.

The plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion—meaning a motion made without the opposing party’s participation—for permission to use substitute service outside the United States. In an earlier order, the court had denied a request to serve Raisi while he was in the United States for the opening of the United Nations General Assembly. At that time, the court relied on the Executive Branch’s suggestion that Raisi was immune from legal process during that visit but did not decide whether he was immune from the lawsuit itself.

Immunity and the parties’ arguments

The Executive Branch later filed a new suggestion of immunity stating that Raisi, as a sitting head of government, was immune from suit altogether. The plaintiffs argued that the court did not have to defer to that position because, they contended, Raisi was not actually Iran’s head of state or head of government under Iranian law. They also argued that Iran’s lack of diplomatic relations with the United States, its designation by the United States as a state sponsor of terrorism, and Raisi’s personal sanctions justified an exception.

The court held that foreign heads of state, heads of government, and foreign ministers receive status-based immunity from suit in United States courts. It further held that courts must defer to the Executive Branch’s determination that a foreign head of state is immune because jurisdiction over the official could interfere with the proper conduct of foreign relations. The court said the judiciary was not equipped to second-guess the Executive Branch’s foreign-affairs judgments and that the Executive Branch’s determination was conclusive here.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that it should independently decide whether Raisi qualified as a head of state or government. It also rejected a judicial exception based on Iran’s relationship with the United States or Raisi’s sanctions. The court noted that there was no suggestion or evidence that the Executive Branch had acted in bad faith, and it did not decide whether bad faith could ever justify refusing to defer to such a determination.

Ruling

Judge Jesse M. Furman concluded that the court was compelled to defer to the Executive Branch’s determination that Raisi was immune from suit as long as he was president of Iran. The court dismissed the case, denied the plaintiffs’ motion for substitute service as moot, directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of Raisi, and closed the case. The court therefore did not reach the merits of the plaintiffs’ torture and killing allegations.