Master The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Torture Victim Protection Act authorizes suits only against natural persons, not organizations such as the Palestinian Authority or the PLO. with this comprehensive case brief.
Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority is a cornerstone Supreme Court decision on the scope of the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA), a federal statute that creates a civil cause of action for torture and extrajudicial killing committed under color of foreign law. At issue was whether victims or their survivors may sue organizations—such as the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)—under the TVPA, or whether the statute limits liability to natural persons only. The Court's unanimous answer, rooted in textual analysis and statutory context, was that the Act targets human perpetrators, not collective entities.
For law students, Mohamad exemplifies modern statutory interpretation: it centers on the ordinary meaning of words (here, "individual"), the significance of Congress's word choice relative to neighboring terms (notably, "person" as defined in the Dictionary Act), the coherence of statutory structure, and the use of legislative history as confirmation rather than as a primary driver. The decision also has significant practical implications for human rights litigation in U.S. courts, channeling TVPA claims toward individual officials rather than organizations, and thereby shaping litigation strategies in tandem with related jurisprudence under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).
566 U.S. 449 (2012)
Plaintiffs were the surviving family members of Azzam Rahim, a naturalized United States citizen of Palestinian origin. They alleged that, while visiting the West Bank in 1995, Rahim was arrested by agents of the Palestinian Authority, detained at a Jericho detention facility, tortured, and ultimately killed. Plaintiffs filed suit in federal district court against the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization, asserting claims under the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), codified as a note to 28 U.S.C. § 1350, and other theories. The district court dismissed the TVPA claims on the ground that the statute permits suits only against natural persons, not organizations. The D.C. Circuit affirmed, concluding that the term "individual" in the TVPA refers to human beings only. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether the TVPA authorizes liability against organizations such as the PA and PLO.
Does the Torture Victim Protection Act authorize a civil action for torture or extrajudicial killing against organizations (such as the Palestinian Authority or PLO), or does the statute limit liability to natural persons only?
Under the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note, the term "individual" identifies the class of potential defendants and refers only to natural persons. The TVPA therefore authorizes civil suits for torture or extrajudicial killing committed under color of foreign law only against natural persons, not against organizations, corporations, or other collective entities.
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the TVPA's use of the term "individual" encompasses only natural persons. Organizations such as the Palestinian Authority and the PLO are not proper defendants under the TVPA. The judgment of the D.C. Circuit was affirmed.
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Sotomayor grounded the decision in the statutory text, ordinary meaning, and context. First, the Court emphasized that the ordinary meaning of "individual" is a human being, as reflected in common usage and dictionaries. Congress's choice to use "individual"—as opposed to the broader term "person"—was significant. The Dictionary Act, 1 U.S.C. § 1, defines "person" to include corporations and other entities, but it does not define "individual"; that contrast supports the conclusion that "individual" is narrower and excludes organizations. Second, the Court examined the TVPA's structure and language. The statute uses "individual" to describe both the perpetrator and the victim, which would be incongruous if the term were read to include organizations (for example, an organization cannot literally be subjected to torture in the sense the statute contemplates). The Act also predicates liability on acts done "under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation," signaling Congress's focus on human actors exercising or abusing governmental authority, i.e., officials or agents, rather than on collective bodies as such. Third, the Court found that the legislative history reinforced this reading. Earlier drafts used the term "person," but Congress ultimately adopted "individual." Committee reports explained that the TVPA was intended to provide a remedy against human rights abusers—"individuals" acting under color of foreign law—and not to create organizational liability. The Court rejected policy-based arguments that broader liability would better serve accountability goals, noting that such judgments are for Congress, which knows how to provide for organizational liability when it wishes to do so. Finally, the Court observed that reading "individual" to mean natural person harmonizes the TVPA with related statutory frameworks, including the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the ATS, and avoids redundancy or unintended overlap. Accordingly, organizations are not proper defendants under the TVPA.
Mohamad is a leading example of textualist statutory interpretation in the human rights context. It clarifies that TVPA claims must be directed at natural persons who, acting under color of foreign law, allegedly committed torture or extrajudicial killing. The decision forecloses attempts to sue organizations and corporations under the TVPA, thereby shaping the defendants and litigation strategies available to human rights plaintiffs in U.S. courts. For students, the case underscores how Congress's word choice—"individual" versus "person"—can decisively cabin the scope of a cause of action and illustrates how courts employ ordinary meaning, structural coherence, and legislative history to reach a unanimous result. The ruling also situates the TVPA within the broader framework of transnational human rights litigation alongside the Alien Tort Statute, later influencing and complementing cases that further define the contours of corporate and extraterritorial liability.
The Court unanimously held that the TVPA authorizes suits only against natural persons. Organizations, including entities like the Palestinian Authority and the PLO, are not proper defendants under the TVPA.
The Court relied on the ordinary meaning of "individual" as a human being, contrasted it with the broader statutory term "person" (which can include corporations), and read the word in the context of the TVPA, which targets human actors who, under color of foreign law, commit torture or extrajudicial killing. Legislative history confirmed that Congress intended to limit liability to natural persons.
Mohamad forecloses TVPA suits against organizations, but plaintiffs may pursue other potential avenues depending on the facts and defendants, such as suits against individual officials under the TVPA, claims under the Alien Tort Statute where applicable (subject to its own limits on corporate liability and extraterritoriality), or other federal or state causes of action where jurisdiction, immunity, and substantive elements are satisfied.
Plaintiffs may sue natural persons—individual officials, agents, or actors—who allegedly committed torture or extrajudicial killing under the actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of a foreign nation. Organizational defendants are excluded.
No. The Court acknowledged the policy arguments but emphasized that its task was to interpret the statute as written. If Congress wishes to extend TVPA liability to organizations, it can amend the statute; the judiciary may not expand the statutory class of defendants beyond what Congress authorized.
Mohamad construes the TVPA, not the ATS, but it sits within the same human rights litigation landscape. The TVPA provides an express cause of action against natural persons for torture and extrajudicial killing. ATS jurisprudence addresses different questions, such as the scope of implied causes of action, corporate liability, and extraterritoriality. Together, these bodies of law define who can be sued and for what conduct in U.S. courts.
Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority squarely answers a foundational question about the TVPA's reach: only natural persons may be sued under the statute. By grounding its reasoning in ordinary meaning, statutory context, and confirmatory legislative history, the Court delivered a clear rule that aligns the TVPA's text with its purpose of targeting human rights abusers acting under color of foreign law.
The decision significantly shapes human rights litigation strategy, directing plaintiffs to identify and sue individual perpetrators rather than organizations. For law students, Mohamad offers a crisp illustration of judicial methodology in statutory cases and highlights how the choice of a single word—"individual"—can determine the availability and scope of a federal cause of action.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →