In a pivotal ruling on Monday, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that CIA contractors involved in designing controversial interrogation techniques are not subject to jurisdiction under US federal courts for civil claims. This decision upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by Abu Zubaydah, a Guantanamo Bay detainee, against two psychologists who developed the interrogation methods based on the military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) training program.

Zubaydah, who has been detained since 2002, sought damages for alleged torture under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which allows federal courts to hear civil actions filed by non-US citizens concerning breaches of US treaties and international law. However, the central issue addressed by the court was whether the Military Commissions Act (MCA) provides jurisdiction to try such cases, which involve violations of the Law of War.

The court concluded that the psychologists acted as government agents, as their activities were authorized and controlled by the CIA. Citing the Restatement (Third) of Agency, Judge Anthony Johnstone emphasized that the definition of an agency relationship hinges on an assessment of the facts rather than how parties describe their relationship. As a result, even though independent contractors typically are not considered agents, an agency relationship was found in this instance.

As Zubaydah was designated an enemy combatant and the defendants were deemed US agents, the MCA effectively stripped the court of jurisdiction to adjudicate any civil claims against them. This ruling aligns with previous court decisions that have consistently protected CIA contractors from legal accountability in similar cases.

This legal outcome has significant implications for Zubaydah, who has been a central figure in discussions about the legality and ethics of the interrogation methods used in the War on Terror. Despite being captured in Pakistan in 2002 and subjected to harsh interrogation tactics such as waterboarding and prolonged confinement, his role in the September 11th attacks remains controversial.

The ruling also follows international legal developments, including a 2023 decision by the UK Supreme Court allowing Zubaydah to bring claims against UK authorities, contrasting sharply with his limited avenues for redress in the US. Zubaydah remains detained at Guantanamo Bay under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Act, a resolution that has been critiqued for its broad application in the post-9/11 military actions.

This case echoes the 2006 Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which highlighted issues with Bush-era military commissions and their alignment with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. As legal battles continue, the implications of this ruling will likely influence future cases involving national security, contractor liability, and the rights of detainees in military custody.