Corrie v. Caterpillar: dismissed again.
So the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit knows the law. Who'da thunk?
Because we agree that plaintiffs’ claims present nonjusticiable political questions that deprive the district court of subject matter jurisdiction when construed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), we do not reach the remaining questions presented under state, federal, and international law. Plaintiffs’ action cannot proceed because its resolution would require the federal judiciary to ask and answer questions that are committed by the Constitution to the political branches of our government.
In other words: GO AWAY.
Yes, parts of the opinion read like an ISM manifesto. But bear in mind that in considering a Motion to Dismiss, the court must accept all facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs (i.e., Cynthia and Craig Corrie and various other parties who claim that members of their families were killed or injured when the Israel Defense Forces demolished homes in the Gaza Strip using Caterpiller bulldozers).
The court's decision rests on the fact that, since 1990, the U.S. government has approved and financed the sale of every Caterpillar bulldozer supplied to the IDF in its efforts to contain and deter terrorist attacks against its civilian population. Our judicial system isn't empowered to second guess foreign policy decisions made by the executive and legislative branches of our government.
So will Rachel Corrie's parents, et al., reluctant to step out of the spotlight, appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will probably decline to even hear the case? Stay tuned.
Despite my efforts to keep an eye on this one, I missed the break. Thanks to LGF for the heads up.
