Home
ADVOCACY
Amicus Briefs
Military Law/Other

Military Law/Other

TypeCaseDescriptionYearKeywords

pdf
NIMJ & Others Amicus Brief in Ali V Rumsfeld (DC Cir 2010) 07-5178, 07-5185, 07-5186, 07-5187 NIMJ and Concerned Retired Military Officers and Military Law and History Scholars Filed in Support of the Plaintiffs-appellants Arguing That the D.C. Circuit Should Reverse the Decision of the Lower Court Which Held That the Defendants, Senior Military and DoD Officials, Were Immune from Suit from Former Detainees Seeking Damages for Abusive Treatment.2010Westfall Immunity, Qualified Immunity, Torture, Inhumane Treatment, Military Law, UCMJ, International Law, Federal Law

pdf
NIMJ & Retired Military and Military Law and History Scholars in Rasul V Rumsfeld (DC Cir 2006) 06-5209 Before the DC Circuit, NIMJ & Retired Military and Military Law and History Scholars Argued That the Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Military Supervisors Were Not Entitled to Westfall or Qualified Immunity to Prevent Their Being Held Liable for the Torture and Inhumane Treatment of Guantanamo Detainees Because the Prohibitions on Torture and Inhumane Treatment Have Long Been Established Under Military Law, Regulation and Tradition, as Well as Federal and International Law, and Under the Doctrine of Command Responsibility Under Which These Officials Are Liable for the Acts of Persons Subject to Their Command.2006Westfall Immunity, Qualified Immunity, Torture, Inhumane Treatment, Military Law, UCMJ, International Law, Federal Law

pdf
NIMJ Amicus Brief in Support of Certiorari in Ortiz V United States (Supreme Court 2015) 15-488 NIMJ Argued That the Supreme Court Should Grant Certiorari to Resolve a Significant Circuit Split on the Application of the Feres Doctrine and the Meaning of the “incident to Service” Requirement for Birth Injuries to Children of Active Duty Parents. NIMJ Argued That Although the Feres Doctrine Serves Important Governmental Interests in Protecting Good Order and Discipline in the Armed Forces, Its Use Has Expanded Far Beyond Any Circumstances Justifying Its Creation, Particularly in Its Expansion to Bar Third Party Claims in Circumstances Not Impacting Military Decision Making. Because This Expansion Has Resulted in Inequitable Results and Injustice, the Supreme Court Should Resolve the Appropriate Test for when Third-party Claims Are Barred by Feres.2015Feres Doctrine, Incident to Service, Birth Injury, Equal Protection, Third-party, Third-party Claims