District of Columbia Circuit holds it lacks appellate jurisdiction under "collateral offshoot" principle to review denial of Exxon's motion to dismiss based on Political Question doctrine in case where Indonesian villagers have accused Exxon of crimes and torts committed by its security forces in Indonesia
Exxon Mobil Corporation and several of its subsidiaries (jointly "Exxon") have long been running a natural gas extraction and processing facility in the Aceh province of Indonesia. In June 2001, Villagers from Aceh brought the present lawsuit, alleging that Exxon's security forces have been committing acts of murder, torture, assault, false imprisonment and other offenses. The Exxon security forces allegedly consist of members of the Indonesian military.
The district court asked for the Department of State's opinion as to whether honoring Plaintiffs' claims would interfere with U.S. foreign policy interests. The Legal Advisor filed a letter in July 2002, opining that this litigation might have serious adverse effects on U.S. interests. In particular, it might affect U.S. Indonesia relations and discourage foreign investment in Indonesia.
The district court, however, denied Exxon's motion to dismiss. In this interlocutory appeal, Exxon maintains that the district court should have granted the motion because Plaintiffs' arguments pose non justiciable "political" questions. Not addressing the merits of Exxon's arguments, the District of Columbia Circuit holds that it lacks jurisdiction and dismisses the appeal.
The issue is whether a district court's denial of a motion to dismiss on political question grounds is the type of collateral or interlocutory order that the losing party can appeal immediately as an exception to the final judgment rule. A majority of the Court holds in the negative.
"Here, Exxon has not established that the political question doctrine confers a "right not to stand trial' that can justify an immediate appeal. Exxon asserts that interlocutory review of the district court's political question holding is necessary to protect the executive branch from judicial intrusion into sensitive foreign policy matters; it argues that any such intrusion will be effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment."
"In Will v. Hallock, 126 S. Ct. 952, 958 (2006), the Supreme Court did identify "honoring the separation of powers' as a value that could support a party's interest in avoiding trial. ... However, ... it only did so while discussing cases involving immunity. ... [C]laims of immunity have long been held to fall within the collateral order doctrine. Thus, although Will did refer to the separation of powers as a "value of a high order,' that case does not support the broad principle that all district court orders that reject separation of powers defenses are immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine." [Slip op. 6].
Exxon has not presented a single case where a federal appeals court held that a denial of a motion to dismiss on political grounds is an immediately appealable collateral order. To allow litigants to immediately appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss based on such grounds would substantially expand the scope of the collateral order doctrine.
The Court also rejects Exxon's alternative petition for a writ of mandamus. The petition failed to show a clear right to have the Plaintiffs' claims dismissed under the political question doctrine.
Citation: Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 05 7162 (D.C. Cir. January 12, 2007).
USA visa and immigration information is available at www.immigrationtelevision.com.
|
