Husayn v. Mitchell

142 F.4th 667 (9th Cir. 2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · June 30, 2025 · No. 24-1468

Summary

The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn’s Alien Tort Statute action against James Mitchell and John Jessen. The court held that the Military Commissions Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(2), deprived the district court of jurisdiction because the claims concerned the detention and treatment of an enemy combatant by agents of the United States. Applying common-law agency principles, the court concluded that the CIA contractors acted as United States agents based on the CIA’s authorization, control, and ratification of their conduct.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Anthony D. Johnstone; John B. Owens; Lawrence VanDyke
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decision date
June 30, 2025
Docket number
24-1468
Procedural posture
Plaintiff appealed from the Eastern District of Washington's dismissal of his Alien Tort Statute damages action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Standard of review
De novo review of whether the complaint invokes federal jurisdiction; on a facial jurisdictional challenge, the court accepts the complaint's factual allegations as true and construes them in the plaintiff's favor.
Precedential value
Published and precedential Ninth Circuit opinion
Parties
Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn, also known as Abu Zubaydah v. James Mitchell, John Jessen, also known as Bruce Jessen
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

subject matter jurisdictionmotions to dismissmilitary lawstatutory interpretationappellate procedure

Practice areas

civil proceduremilitary lawappellate procedurestatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Military Commissions Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(2), deprived the district court of jurisdiction over Husayn's Alien Tort Statute damages action.
  2. Whether defendants, although characterized in their contracts as independent contractors, were agents of the United States within the meaning of the Military Commissions Act.
  3. Whether the complaint adequately alleged that the CIA authorized, controlled, or ratified defendants' conduct so as to establish an agency relationship.

Holdings

  1. The Military Commissions Act deprives federal courts of jurisdiction over an action relating to an enemy combatant's detention or treatment when the action is brought against the United States or its agents, and Husayn's action falls within that jurisdictional bar.
  2. The undefined term 'agents' in the Military Commissions Act incorporates the common-law meaning of agency and includes independent contractors who satisfy the common-law requirements for an agency relationship.
  3. Defendants were agents of the United States for purposes of Husayn's claims because the CIA authorized them to act on its behalf, retained the right to control their interrogations, and ratified any acts outside their initial authority.

Key quotations

We hold that the complaint also establishes that Defendants were agents of the United States for Zubaydah’s claims. Therefore, the MCA denied the district court jurisdiction over this case. (at 675)
An agency relationship arises when a principal agrees with an agent “that the agent shall act [1] on the principal’s behalf and [2] subject to the principal’s control.” (at 678)
The complaint’s allegations show that Defendants acted as agents of the CIA in their interrogations of Zubaydah because the CIA authorized them to do it and controlled them while doing it. (at 687)

Factual background

Husayn was captured in Pakistan in 2002, transferred to a CIA black site, and subjected to interrogation techniques designed and administered by psychologists James Mitchell and John Jessen under contracts with the CIA. He alleged that the techniques included waterboarding, sleep deprivation, confinement, and other acts amounting to torture. Husayn was later designated an enemy combatant and sued defendants for damages under the Alien Tort Statute.

Procedural history

Husayn sued Mitchell and Jessen for alleged torture and other violations arising from his detention and interrogation at a CIA black site. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss on several grounds, including lack of jurisdiction under the Military Commissions Act. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the jurisdictional issue de novo and affirmed the dismissal.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…