Baker et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran

Namig Baker and sixty other plaintiffs—sixteen U.S. servicemembers injured in terrorist attacks in Afghanistan between 2008 and 2012 and forty-five of their family members—sued Iran under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s terrorism exception. Plaintiffs alleged Iran provided material support to a syndicate of terrorist groups behind the attacks.

Judge Beryl Howell held that Iran was liable, finding sufficient evidence of its material support. Many plaintiffs, including those injured and their families, were awarded damages. However, several claims were denied as the attacks did not result in deaths, and consistent with the newly decided Borochov v. Iran & Syria, the FSIA’s terrorism exception could not apply to those incidents.

This decision underscores that even where Iran’s responsibility is established, recovery under the FSIA requires strict proof of statutory elements. While many claims succeeded, others failed for lack of evidence of causation or because the attacks did not meet the statute’s new threshold definition of “extrajudicial killing” under Borochov. Unless Congress acts to clarify the FSIA statute and correct Borochov, victims of terrorism risk being left without a remedy for serious injuries when an attack falls short of causing death.