Blog of law articles

Hi kids -- why have you not started your vacation yet?

For those of you who read this crappy blog to get some update on, you know, legal matters, here is an interesting 11th Circuit opinion that affirms a Georgia district court decision to dismiss a negligence action against Halliburton on political question grounds:

At issue today is whether the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s
negligence suit arising out of an accident in which her husband, a sergeant in the
United States Army, was severely injured in May 2004 while serving as an armed
escort for a large military convoy traveling through a war zone in Iraq. The district
court held that the suit was non-justiciable on political question grounds and
dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the plaintiff
contends that the suit does not implicate the political question doctrine because a
civilian contractor, and not the military, was responsible for the accident.

After thorough review, we conclude that adjudicating the plaintiff’s claims
would require extensive reexamination and second-guessing of many sensitive
judgments surrounding the conduct of a military convoy in war time -- including
its timing, size, configurations, speed, and force protection. In addition, we can
discern no judicially manageable standards for resolving the plaintiff’s claims.
Accordingly, we hold that the political question doctrine bars the plaintiff’s suit,
and we affirm the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

This is a disappointing decision in some respects, but I can't say it was wrongly decided.

It's pretty weird when you think about it to have the United States Army, while at war, contract out its "force protection" to a private business in a war zone, but what do I know -- weren't the Minutemen a wholly owned subsidiary of BFSC (Ben Franklin Security Services)?