Aljabri v. bin Salman: Asserting Personal Jurisdiction Over Those Involved in an Alleged Plot to Murder a Political Dissent

I find this issue (and case!) fascinating—what does it take for an American court to exercise jurisdiction over a foreign national?  Especially when that foreign national is alleged to be attempting to murder a political dissident and enlisting America-based college students to do so.  Judge Michelle Childs offers a clearly written and enlightening opinion about the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and someone who appears to be a spy.  Here are the facts: 

Dr. Saad Aljabri is a former advisor to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, and he brought this action against the successor Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS, you know, Jared Kushner’s good buddy), other Saudi officials, several Saudi students studying in the U.S., and others. Aljabri alleged in his complaint a plot to kill him and asserted claims for extrajudicial killing in violation of the Torture Victim Protection Act, conspiracy to commit extrajudicial killing under the Alien Tort Statute, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  He believes bin Salman has been hunting him down to murder him.  The district court dismissed the claims due to lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Aljabri, who served Saudi Arabia for 39 years in national security and counterterrorism and had close U.S. intelligence contacts, relocated to Canada. 

Aljabri alleged that bin Salman and others plotted to kill him using a network of Saudi students in the U.S., coordinated through the MiSK Foundation, and involving recruitment of spies from student clubs.  For his part, MBS claims Aljabri stole or misspent billions of dollars in Saudi money. The district court found exercising jurisdiction over the defendants would not be fair under traditional notions of jurisdiction, and dismissed the claims citing insufficient proof that the defendants targeted the U.S. or that U.S.-based students knew of the plot. The D.C. Court of Appeals faulted the district court for not allowing discovery so Aljabri could prove the basis of his claim of jurisdiction.

So, the district court initially dismissed Aljabri’s claims against Prince Mohammed bin Salman citing head of state immunity, given his position as Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia, which provides him immunity from suit. However, the D.C. Circuit criticized the district court for abusing its discretion by not allowing jurisdictional discovery regarding communications between Alasaker, Saud Alqahtani, and U.S.-based Saudis that could potentially establish the minimum contacts necessary for personal jurisdiction.

In its opinion, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals analyzed the personal jurisdiction issue by looking at whether the defendants’ actions were sufficiently connected to the United States to warrant jurisdiction. The district court found that the involvement of Alasaker, Saud Alqahtani, Alassiri, and the Tiger Squad (MBS’s personal mercenary squad) in the plot to kill Aljabri did not target the United States. The court also determined that none of their contacts related to the lawsuit. Additionally, the District of Columbia’s long-arm statute did not provide specific personal jurisdiction over MiSK, Alrajhi, or Hamed because their alleged business activities in D.C. were not sufficiently aligned with the plot against Aljabri’s life. Aljabri’s request for jurisdictional discovery was denied because it would not have affected the court’s conclusion that exercising personal jurisdiction over the defendants would be unreasonable. The district court dismissed the claims against several defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction and ruled that mere involvement or direction from bin Salman did not establish sufficient jurisdictional grounds. 

The Court of Appeals concluded the district court abused its discretion by denying Aljabri the opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery regarding the communications between Alasaker, Saud Alqahtani, and the U.S.-based Saudis. Aljabri, it found, had a good-faith belief that these communications could establish the minimum contacts necessary to exercise personal jurisdiction. The court reversed the district court’s order denying jurisdictional discovery, vacated the judgment of dismissal with respect to Bader Alasaker and Saud Alqahtani, and remanded for jurisdictional discovery.  As of this date, August 7, 2024, it appears the case has not been remanded.  I suspect petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are going to be the next order of business before this case goes any further.