By Bob Egelko, Courts ReporterJuly 15, 2024
Pro-Palestinian protesters rally outside the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse on Jan. 26 in Oakland. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit Monday that alleged President Biden enabled genocide in Gaza.Noah Berger/Special to The Chronicle
A lawsuit by Palestinian-rights advocates accusing President Joe Biden of enabling genocide in Gaza was rejected Monday by a federal appeals court, which said U.S. military support of Israel was a “political question” that courts lack authority to judge.
“Federal courts decide only matters of law, with the elected branches setting the policies of our nation,” the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said in a 3-0 ruling upholding a federal judge’s dismissal of the suit.
The suit was filed last November by Palestinian-rights supporters and relatives of slain Palestinians. It accused Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin of complicity in genocide with billions of dollars in military aid, including a recent $15 billion appropriation. The suit seeks court orders that would require administration officials to do everything within their power to halt Israel’s bombing and siege of Gaza.
An international treaty signed by the U.S. and Israel defines genocide as actions “committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
Since the Hamas attack last October, which killed more than 1,100 Israelis, Israel has killed more than 39,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza health officials, and destroyed many of its hospitals. In a suit by South Africa, the International Court of Justice has found “plausible” evidence of genocide and ordered Israel to halt the killing of Palestinians. Israel has rejected the court’s order and called its finding “blood libel.” Biden has called South Africa’s suit “meritless.”
In the suit against Biden, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of Oakland also said there was evidence of genocide but reluctantly dismissed the case in January, saying that under established legal standards, “foreign policy is constitutionally committed to the political branches of government.”
The appeals court agreed with White’s legal conclusion Monday but distanced itself from his comments on genocide. Because federal courts lack authority over the issue, “any claimed factual findings and related commentary are of no legal force,” the panel wrote. “Once it is determined that claims present political questions, the judicial inquiry ends.”
The panel consisted of Judges Consuelo Callahan, an appointee of President George W. Bush, Jacqueline Nguyen, appointed by President Barack Obama, and Daniel Bress, appointed by President Donald Trump. White was also appointed by Bush.
The court cited its 2007 ruling in the case of Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old U.S. college student and volunteer worker who was struck and killed by a U.S.-made bulldozer in 2003 while trying to protect a house in the Gaza Strip from being demolished by Israelis.
Her family’s lawsuit accused the manufacturer, Caterpillar, of aiding Israel in war crimes. But the 9th Circuit court noted that Caterpillar was receiving U.S. government funds and said allowing the suit to proceed would interfere with executive authority over foreign policy.
Palestinian advocates in the current suit “ask the courts to condemn the United States’ foreign policy toward Israel, to the point of wresting this responsibility away from the Executive Branch and placing it under judicial control,” the court panel said. While the plaintiffs argue that they are only accusing the administration of violating its duty to abide by the law, the court said, “many, if not most, grievances can be styled as the violation of an asserted legal obligation.”
A lawyer for the Palestinian-rights groups said they were considering an appeal.
The ruling “gives a blank check to the administration to do whatever it wants anywhere in the world and ignore clear obligations under both international and U.S. law,” said attorney Marc Van Der Hout, whose law firm alongside the nonprofit, the Center for Constitutional Rights, represent the plaintiffs.
Reach Bob Egelko: begelko@sfchronicle.com; Twitter: @BobEgelko
July 15, 2024
COURTS REPORTER
Bob Egelko has been a reporter since June 1970. He spent 30 years with the Associated Press, covering news, politics and occasionally sports in Los Angeles, San Diego and Sacramento, and legal affairs in San Francisco from 1984 onward. He worked for the San Francisco Examiner for five months in 2000, then joined The Chronicle in November 2000.His beat includes state and federal courts in California, the Supreme Court and the State Bar. He has a law degree from McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento and is a member of the bar. Coverage has included the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, the appointment of Rose Bird to the state Supreme Court and her removal by the voters, the death penalty in California and the battles over gay rights and same-sex marriage.
