On March 14, 2024, CJA filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit in support of the plaintiffs’ appeal in DCI-Palestine v. Biden. The case was brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of two Palestinian human rights organizations and several Palestinian individuals against U.S. President Joseph Biden and other Biden administration officials. The case challenges the U.S. government’s military, financial, and diplomatic support for Israel and alleges that the defendants failed to prevent and are complicit in genocide in Gaza.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint on January 31, 2024. The court found that although “the undisputed evidence . . . indicates that the current treatment of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by the Israeli military may plausibly constitute a genocide in violation of international law,” the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because it presented a nonjusticiable political question. Plaintiffs appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit.
CJA’s March 14, 2024 amicus brief urged the Ninth Circuit to reverse the district court’s decision and argued that under international law, victims of human rights violations—and in particular, jus cogens violations such as genocide—have the right to an effective remedy. The brief further argued that in the international legal order, national courts are the courts of first instance in adjudicating human rights violations, and thus where U.S. action is at issue, U.S. courts are those courts of first instance.
A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision on July 15, 2024. The plaintiffs have petitioned for a rehearing en banc.
On September 9, 2024, CJA filed a second amicus brief urging the Ninth Circuit the grant plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing en banc. The September 9, 2024 amicus brief again highlights the right to a remedy for victims of serious human rights violations under international law and the role of national courts in serving as the courts of first instance in adjudicating such claims. The brief also argues that there are clear, judicially manageable standards for evaluating the plaintiffs’ claims, namely the established legal standards for aiding and abetting liability and complicity in genocide, that the court can readily apply in this case.
