source: Caselaw Access Project

author: VANASKIE, Circuit Judge.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Greg HARGUS v. FEROCIOUS AND IMPETUOUS, LLC; Kyle Coleman; Joseph Trattner; St. Thomas Sport And Social Club; M/V One Love Kyle Coleman; M/V One Love, Appellants
    No. 15-3635
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Argued May 19, 2016
    (Filed: October 18, 2016)

      Matthew J. Duensing, [ARGUED], 5060 Fort Straede, Electra House, P.O. Box 6785, St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands 00802, Counsel for Appellants.
    Before: FUENTES, VANASKIE, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges
   OPINION

VANASKIE, Circuit Judge.

Appellants Kyle Coleman and the M/V One Love (the “One Love”) appeal the District Court’s judgment in favor of Ap-pellee Greg Hargus on his negligence claim following a bench trial. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the tortious act giving rise to Hargus’ claim was insufficient to invoke maritime jurisdiction because the act was not of the type that could potentially disrupt maritime commerce. Therefore, the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Hargus’ personal injury claim. Accordingly, we will vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand the matter with instructions that the District Court dismiss the case.

I.

On May 19, 2012, Hargus and a group of individuals rented the One Love to travel from St. Thomas to various destinations throughout the United States Virgin Islands. Ferocious and Impetuous, LLC (“F&I”) owned the One Love and had hired Coleman as a captain. One of the stops on the tour was Cruz Bay, St. John, where Coleman anchored the One Love in “knee deep” water close to the shore. (App. 30, 271.) Most of the passengers then disembarked from the One Love. Later in the day, two members of the group—who were standing on the beach approximately 25 feet away from the One Love—threw beer cans at Hargus while he was standing on the deck of the anchored One Love. Upon seeing this, Coleman, who was standing on the beach next to the other two individuals, threw an empty insulated plastic coffee cup at Hargus. The plastic cup hit Hargus in the temple on the left side of his head. Hargus, however, did not lose consciousness and did not complain of any injury at that time. One Love resumed its journey without further incident.

On May 21, 2012, two days after the incident, Hargus, who had experienced pain and vision impairments after being hit by the coffee cup, sought medical attention. He was diagnosed with a concussion and a mild contusion. The treating physician did not prescribe any medication and allowed Hargus to return to work that day without.restrictions,

Hargus did not seek further medical treatment until more than a year later. From June of 2013 until October of 2013, he was examined by at least three doctors for complaints of headaches, memory loss, mood swings, and neck pain. He last sought treatment for his headaches and other symptoms in October of 2013.

On November 20, 2013, Hargus filed the instant lawsuit in the District Court of the Virgin Islands against Coleman, F&I, Joseph Trattner (owner of F&I), Brent Haz-zard, St. Thomas Sport and Social Club, and the One Love, in rem. In his Amended Complaint, Hargus asserted five claims: (1) a maritime lien against the One Love; (2) negligence and negligent entrustment against- F&I, Trattner, Hazzard, and the St. Thomas Sport and Social Club; (3) negligence against Coleman; and (5) vicarious liability against F&I, Trattner, Hazzard, and the St. Thomas Sport and Social Club. The District Court held -a two-day bench trial on Hargus’ claims on February 24 and 25,2015.

On September 30, 2015, the District Court issued its opinion, explaining that it had admiralty jurisdiction over Hargus’ claims because “[cjlaims such as these for personal injury to the passenger of a vessel caused by the captain of the vessel meet the situs and nexus requirements for admiralty tort jurisdiction of this Court.” (App. 44.) The District Court further concluded that Coleman was negligent and that the One Love was jointly and severally liable in rem. However, the District Court found that F&I and Trattner were not liable for negligence or negligent en-trustment and were not vicariously liable. Thereafter, the District Court entered judgment in favor of Hargus and against Coleman and the One Love, jointly and severally, in the amount of $50,000. Coleman and the One Love timely filed this appeal.

II.

We have appellate jurisdiction to review a final order of the District Court under 28 U.S.C. '§ 1291. We exercise de novo review over the District Court’s determination of its own admiralty jurisdiction. Maher Terminals, LLC v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 805 F.3d 98, 104 (3d Cir. 2015); Sinclair v. Sonifomn, Inc., 935 F.2d 599, 601 (3d Cir. 1991).

Under the United States Constitution, the federal judicial power encompasses “all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction.” U.S. Const, art. Ill, § 2, cl. 1. Congress codified that jurisdiction at 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1), which provides that federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “[a]ny civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1). “The fundamental interest giving rise to maritime jurisdiction is ‘the protection of maritime commerce.’ ” Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 367, 110 S.Ct. 2892, 111 L.Ed.2d 292 (1990) (quoting Foremost Ins. Co. v. Richardson, 457 U.S. 668, 674, 102 S.Ct. 2654, 73 L.Ed.2d 300 (1982)).

When a party seeks to invoke federal admiralty jurisdiction over a tort claim, the claim “must satisfy conditions both of location and of connection with maritime activity.” Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 534, 115 S.Ct. 1043, 130 L.Ed.2d 1024 (1995). The location aspect is satisfied if “the tort occurred on navigable water” or the “injury suffered on land was caused by a vessel on navigable water.” Id. The connection aspect is a conjunctive two-part inquiry. First, we “must ‘assess the general features of the type of incident involved’ to determine whether the incident has ‘a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce.’ ” Id. (quoting Sisson, 497 U.S. at 363, 364 n.2, 110 S.Ct. 2892). Second, we “must determine whether ‘the general character’ of the ‘activity giving rise to the incident’ shows a ‘substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.’ ” Id. (quoting Sisson, 497 U.S. at 364 n.2, 365, 110 S.Ct. 2892). Federal admiralty jurisdiction is only proper when the location test and both prongs of the connection test are satisfied. Id.

Here, even assuming the location test is satisfied, we find that admiralty jurisdiction is lacking because the first prong of the connection test is not met. The first prong of the connection test analyzes whether “the general features of the type of incident involved” have “a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce.” Id. (quoting Sisson, 497 U.S. at 363, 364 n.2, 110 S.Ct. 2892). This analysis requires us to assess the “potential” disruptive effects that the type of incident involved could have on maritime commerce, not whether the particular incident at hand actually disrupted maritime commerce. Id. at 538-39, 115 S.Ct. 1043. In so doing, we must describe the incident “at an intermediate level of possible generality.” Id. at 538, 115 S.Ct. 1043. The purpose of this exercise is to ascertain “whether the incident could be seen within a class of incidents that posed more than a fanciful risk to commercial shipping.” Id. at 539, 115 S.Ct. 1043.

Several cases illustrate the proper analysis. In Sisson, a fire broke out on a recreational vessel that was docked at a marina, destroying that vessel and damaging several recreational vessels nearby and the marina. 497 U.S. at 360, 110 S.Ct. 2892. The Supreme Court described the incident as “a fire on a vessel docked at a marina on navigable waters,” and concluded that this type of incident has the potential to disrupt maritime commerce because the fire could have spread to a nearby commercial vessel or made the marina inaccessible for commercial vessels. Id. at 362-63, 110 S.Ct. 2892.

Likewise, in Grubart, a construction company that was using a crane on a barge in the Chicago River allegedly cracked a freight tunnel running under the river, causing water to pour into the tunnel and flood buildings downtown. 513 U.S. at 530, 115 S.Ct. 1043. The Supreme Court described that incident as “damage by a vessel in navigable water to an underwater structure,” and concluded that this type of incident has the potential to disrupt maritime commerce because it “could lead to a disruption in the water course itself’ or “could lead to restrictions on the navigational use of the waterway during required repairs.” Id. at 539, 115 S.Ct. 1043; see also Foremost Ins. Co., 457 U.S. at 675, 102 S.Ct. 2654 (describing a collision between two pleasure boats as “a collision between boats on navigable water” and concluding that such an incident has the potential to disrupt maritime commerce because a collision between boats in an area with heavy commercial boat traffic would have a “substantial effect on maritime commerce”); id. at 675 n.5, 102 S.Ct. 2654 (explaining that, in Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249, 93 S.Ct. 493, 34 L.Ed.2d 454 (1972), the Supreme Court concluded that a plane crashing into the water had the potential to disrupt maritime commerce because “an aircraft sinking in the water could create a hazard for the navigation of commercial vessels in the vicinity”).

On the other hand, in Tandon v. Captain’s Cove Marina of Bridgeport, Inc., 752 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2014), the court concluded that a brawl on a permanent floating dock between passengers of two boats did not have the potential to disrupt maritime commerce. In that case, two separate groups of individuals (the “Tandon group” and the “Genna group”) traveled by separate boats to a marina restaurant for dinner and drinks. Id. at 241. As both groups left the restaurant and boarded their boats, a member of the Tandon group fell into the water. Id. Members of the Genna group laughed at the mishap, leading members of the Tandon group to yell unspecified comments in response. Id. Both groups then proceeded by boat to the South Dock—a floating dock accessible only by water—and docked their respective vessels. Id. at 242. Once both groups disembarked from their vessels onto the South Dock, a fistfight broke out, during which one member of the Genna group was knocked off the South Dock and into the water. Id. The individual also alleged that he was then held underwater to the point of asphyxia and suffered severe injuries as a result. Id.

In analyzing the potential for this type of incident to disrupt maritime commerce, the Second Circuit described the incident as “a physical altercation among recreational visitors on and around a permanent dock surrounded by navigable water.” Id. at 249. The Court explained that, unlike Grubart, this type of incident cannot disrupt navigation because “it does not create any obstruction to the free passage of commercial ships along navigable waterways. Nor can it lead to a disruption in the course of the waterway itself.” Id. Furthermore, the Court noted that, unlike Sis-son, this incident “cannot immediately damage nearby commercial vessels” and “threatens only its participants.” Id. Moreover, the Court found that because the incident did not occur while the parties were at sea, the incident could not “distract the crew from their duties, endangering the safety of the vessel and risking collision with others on the same waterway” or force the vessel “to divert from its course to obtain medical care for the injured person.” Id. at 250. Finally, the Court noted that the injured individual was not “employed in maritime commerce.” Id. Accordingly, the Second Circuit concluded that “this type of incident does not realistically pose a threat to maritime commerce.” Id. at 249.

Here, the activity in question can be described as throwing a small inert object from land at an individual onboard an anchored vessel. Like the fistfight in Tan-don, we find that this type of incident “does not realistically pose a threat to maritime commerce.” Id. First, unlike damage.to an underwater structure, see Grubart, 513 U.S. at 538-39, 115 S.Ct. 1043, or a collision between two vessels, see Foremost Insurance Co., 457 U.S. at 675, 102 S.Ct. 2654, throwing an inert object from land onto an anchored vessel does not create any potential for disrupting the course of the waterway or obstructing the free passage of commercial ships on the waterway. Second, unlike a fire on a marina, see Sisson, 497 U.S. at 363, 110 S.Ct. 2892, or a plane crashing into the water, see Foremost Insurance Co., 457 U.S. at 675 n.5, 102 S.Ct. 2654, throwing an inert object from land onto an anchored vessel has no potential to damage nearby commercial vessels.

In sum, throwing an object like a coffee cup from land at an individual standing on an anchored vessel does not threaten a disruptive effect on maritime commerce because it does not have the potential of disrupting navigation, damaging nearby commercial vessels, dr causing a commercial vessel to divert from its course. Accordingly, Hargus’ claims do not satisfy the first prong of the two-prong connection test,' rendering the invocation of federal admiralty jurisdiction inappropriate.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we will vacate the District Court’s judgment of September 30, 2015 and remand the matter with 'instructions that the District Court dismiss the case.

      . The One Love is a twenty-six foot recreational vessel.

      . The factual recitation is based largely upon the Findings of Fact made by the District Court following the Bench Trial, (App. 29-33.)

      . Hargus had a history of head trauma, having previously suffered 10 to 12 head injuries or concussions.

      . It bears noting that no entry of appearance was made on behalf of Hargus. Nor was a brief filed on his behalf and neither Hargus nor an attorney acting on his behalf participated in oral argument.


author: OPINION GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge.

text:
    SOUTH JERSEY SANITATION COMPANY, INC. v. APPLIED UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Appellant
    No. 14-4010
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Argued January 20, 2016
    (Opinion Filed: October 25, 2016)

      Susan Karlovich, ' Esq., Thomas F. Quinn, Esq. [ARGUED], Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, 200 Campus Drive, Florham Park, NJ 07932, Counsel for Appellant
    Louis M. Barbone, Esq. [ARGUED], Jacobs & Barbone, P.A., 1125 Pacific Avenue, Atlantic City, NJ 08401, Counsel for Ap-pellee

      Before: JORDAN, HARDIMAN, and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc. (“Applied Underwriters”), a Berkshire Hathaway Company, appeals from the District Court’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration in its contract-based dispute with Appellee South Jersey Sanitation Company, Inc. (“South Jersey”). Because we find that South Jersey’s purported challenges to the arbitration agreement apply to the parties’ contract as. a whole, rather than to the arbitration agreement alone, the parties’ dispute is arbitrable and we will reverse.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

South Jersey is a trash-removal business with over eighty employees. On September 3, 2008, as its workers’ compensation insurance policy neared expiration, South Jersey, through its insurance agent, entered into a Reinsurance Participation Agreement (“RPA”) with Applied Underwriters. The stated purpose of the RPA is to establish South Jersey’s participation “in [Applied Underwriters’s] segregated protected cell reinsurance program.” (App. 96.)

The RPA, which has a three-year term, contains a one-and-one-half-page arbitration provision, according to which “any disputes .arising under [the RPA]” would be arbitrated either in Tortola or in a location on which the parties agreed. (App. 98-100.) It also contains a choice-of-law provision, which indicates that the RPA “shall be exclusively governed by” Nebraska law. (App. 100.) The RPA and its attached tables of “Loss Development Factors,” “Exposure Group Adjustment Factors,” and “Loss Pick Containment Rates and Estimated Annual Amounts,” total ten pages.

In its complaint, South Jersey alleges that it entered into the RPA when its workers’ compensation insurance was about to expire in the belief that the RPA was a replacement workers’ compensation insurance policy. South Jersey argues that Applied Underwriters fraudulently presented the RPA as such an insurance policy. South Jersey contends that, in reality, the RPA is a retrospective rating or “retro” insurance policy pursuant to which South Jersey’s premiums for each payment policy period would be based on claims paid during the previous period. South Jersey alleges that it was promised that it could “realize ‘huge rebates’ at the end of the policy term in the event that premiums far outweighed the payouts required for worker’s compensation benefits.” (App. 2.)

South Jersey also notes in its complaint that Applied Underwriters is “not an insurer defined under New Jersey statutes” and therefore cannot issue workers’ compensation insurance policies in New Jersey. (App. 6.) Nevertheless, in its appellate brief, South Jersey posits that “the plain language of the RPA clearly relates to, concernsU and actually issues a workers’ compensation policy to [South Jersey].” (Appellee Br. 7.)

Before the District Court, Applied Underwriters represented that South Jersey purchased a primary workers’ compensation insurance policy from Continental Indemnity Company (“Continental”). Like Applied Underwriters, Continental is a Berkshire Hathaway Company. Continental then entered into a pooling agreement with California Insurance Company (“California”), another Berkshire Hathaway Company. (App. 142-43.) This pooling agreement was a reinsurance treaty. Applied Underwriters, in turn, provided reinsurance to California and, derivatively, to Continental.

According to Applied Underwriters, the RPA was not a workers’ compensation insurance policy, but rather an investment instrument. Applied Underwriters argues that the RPA “is simply not an ‘insurance policy,’ but rather a contract ‘relating [to] or concerning’ a reinsurance policy.” (Appellant Br. 30.) Applied Underwriters further contends that, under the RPA, if South Jersey “had low cost [workers’ compensation] claims, it would receive a profit[-]sharing distribution under the RPA from its segregated protected cell. If its losses were high, it enjoyed the cap protection of the maximum threshold in the RPA.” (Id. at 6.) Essentially, the RPA would allow South Jersey to speculate as to its future performance under its actual workers’ compensation policy with Continental by “financially shar[ing] in the underwriting results based on actual losses incurred and the size of its payroll.” (Ap-pellee Br. 6.) Indeed, Paragraph Three of the RPA indicates that “Participant is participating in this Agreement for purposes of investment only.” (App. 96.)

For two years' and ten months of the RPA’s three-year period, South Jersey received and paid monthly invoices for premiums ranging from $40,000 to $50,000, with the expectation of receiving a rebate at the end of the policy period. South Jersey based its expected refund on the fact that it had “paid in excess of $1,200,000 in premiums” over the term of the RPA and that the workers’ compensation claims paid on its behalf “totaled the approximate amount of $355,000 over three years.” (App. 3.) “In July of 2011[,] however, approximately two months before the calculation of [South Jersey’s] rebate, [Applied Underwriters] sent a premium invoice in the amount of $218,887.04.” (Suppl. App. 23.) South Jersey alleges that, when it contacted Applied Underwriters about this amount, it was told that the premium was driven by loss history.

South Jersey asserts that it paid $60,000 to avoid cancellation of the RPA, but that Applied Underwriters nevertheless issued a “Notice of Cancellation effective August 1, 2011.” (App. 4.) South Jersey then secured a workers’ compensation insurance policy with a different carrier, and Applied Underwriters continued to send South Jersey invoices for fluctuating amounts. Ultimately, Applied Underwriters declared that South Jersey owed $300,632.94 in an invoice dated September 26, 2012. South Jersey did not pay, and Applied Underwriters filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association seeking this amount on September 26, 2013.

On October 31, 2013, South Jersey filed a complaint in the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division, seeking declaratory relief as to the arbitration provision and rescission of the RPA (Counts One and Two), as well as damages for breach of contract (Count 3); fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and illegality (Count 4); and negligent misrepresentation (Count 5).

On November 4, 2013, Applied Underwriters removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. South Jersey moved to remand the case to state court one month later. Applied Underwriters responded by filing a motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration in lieu of an answer.

The District Court heard arguments on these motions on May 5, 2014, and denied South Jersey’s motion to remand that day. On August 25, 2014, the Court denied the motion to compel arbitration and ordered Applied Underwriters to file an Answer. The District Court based its denial on the following findings: (1) Nebraska law governs the dispute pursuant to the RPA’s choice-of-law clause; (2) Section 25-2602.01 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes (“the Nebraska Statute”) “sets forth that all arbitration provisions ‘concerning or relating to an insurance policy,’ except those ‘between insurance companies,’ are unenforceable” (App. 33); (3) “the RPA is not a contract between insurance companies” (App. 34); (4) the Nebraska Statute preempts the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16, through the McCarran-Ferguson Act' (“M-FA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015; and (5) the arbitration provision is therefore unenforceable.

Applied Underwriters filed a notice of appeal on September 19, 2014. It argues that the District Court erred in reaching the issue of reverse-preemption without first considering whether arbitrability is a question for the courts or the arbitrator; that arbitrability is, in fact, a question for the arbitrator-under the terms of the RPA; that the Nebraska statute does not reverse-preempt the FAA; and that, even if it did, the Nebraska Statute is inapposite, inasmuch as the RPA does not fall .within its purview.

South Jersey counters that the District Court properly determined that the RPA falls within the scope of the Nebraska Statute, that the Nebraska Statute reverse-preempts the FAA, and that the RPA’s arbitration provision is therefore unenforceable. South Jersey adds that Count Four of its Complaint, entitled “Fraud, Intentional Misrepresentation and Illegality” (App. 12.), “serves as an additional basis to invalidate the arbitration agreement, or the contract as a whole, without contravening the FAA” (Appellee Br. 5).

III. JURISDICTION & STANDARD OF REVIEW

The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).

Our review of all facets of this appeal is plenary. First, “[w]e exercise plenary review over questions regarding the validity and enforceability of an agreement to arbitrate.” Puleo v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 605 F.3d 172, 177 (3d Cir. 2010) (en banc). Second, because preemption determinations are questions of law, we review such determinations de novo. Horn v. Thoratec Corp., 376 F.3d 163, 166 (3d Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Finally, to the extent that this appeal requires construction of statutory or contractual provisions, our review is also plenary. Viera v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011) (contracts); Seamans v. Temple Univ., 744 F.3d 853, 859 (3d Cir. 2014) (statutes).

IV. ANALYSIS

“Congress enacted the [FAA] ‘to reverse the longstanding judicial hostility to arbitration agreements ..; and to place arbitration agreements upon the same footing as- other contracts.’ ” Puleo, 605 F.3d at 177-78 (second alteration in original) (quoting Spinetti v. Serv. Corp. Int’l, 324 F.3d 212, 218 (3d Cir. 2003)). Although the FAA favors arbitration and limits the involvement of the court system in contracts that provide for arbitration, “[l]ike other contracts, [arbitration- agreements] may be invalidated by ‘generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability.’ ” Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 68, 130 S.Ct. 2772, 177 L.Ed.2d 403 (2010) (quoting Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 687, 116 S.Ct. 1652, 134 L.Ed.2d 902 (1996)). Accordingly, where a party challenges the validity of an otherwise controlling arbitration clause, courts hear that challenge. See id. at 71, 130 S.Ct. 2772 (“If a party challenges the validity under [FAA] § 2 of the precise agreement to arbitrate at issue, the federal court must consider the challenge before ordering compliance with that agreement under [FAA] § 4.”).

The challenge, however, must focus exclusively on the arbitration provision, rather on than the contract as ,a whole. As the Supreme Court stressed in Rent-A-Center, “only [an arbitration provision-specific] challenge is relevant to a court’s determination whether the arbitration agreement at issue.is enforceable.” Id. at 70, 130 S.Ct. 2772. If the challenge encompasses the contract as a whole, the validity of that contract, like all other disputes arising under the contract, is a matter for the arbitrator to decide. See id.

The RPA’s arbitration provision, like the comprehensive arbitration agreement at issue in Rent~A~Center, applies to “[a]ll disputes arising with respect to any provision of” the RPA and confers “binding and conclusive” authority on the arbitrator. (App. 99.) Thus, unless South Jersey specifically challenges the legal validity of the RPA’s arbitration provision, the parties’ present dispute, which arises out of the RPA, is subject to arbitration.

We find that neither of South Jersey’s challenges focus on the arbitration provision alone, and we therefore reverse the District Court’s denial of Applied Underwriters’s motion to compel arbitration.

A. Fraud, Intentional Misrepresentation, and Illegality

In its complaint, South Jersey sets forth its fraud-based challenge in the following terms:

35. Defendant Applied Underwriters did at all times relevant hereto factually misrepresent the terms and conditions of its contract, so as to induce plaintiff to pay premiums totaling in excess of $1,200,000 while at the same time contracting with an insurer to pay worker’s compensation losses of approximately one-third of those premiums. Defendant did by its false factual representations induce plaintiffs reasonable expectation and reliance upon a term-end rebate given its employment and loss history in worker’s compensation. Defendant’s factual representations were false, as demonstrated by the defendant’s admission that its premiums were “inflated[.”] Defendant knew that it had represented and induced plaintiffs participation in its contract of reinsurance by representing plaintiffs entitlement to a rebate, and by further, over a period of thirty-four months[,] consistently billing the plaintiff for policy premiums of between $40,000 and $50,000. Ultimately, when plaintiff was to realize its substantial rebate given premiums paid in comparison to its loss history, defendant manipulated its “estimates” and fictitious formulas to avoid payment of that rebate and to instead threaten plaintiff with cancellation if the inflated and fictitious premiums were not paid.
36. Defendant has[,] by virtue of the aforenoted conduct, committed fraud upon the plaintiff pursuant to unconscionable contractual terms and conditions in violation of New Jersey law and public policy.

(App. 12-13.)

It is plain from these paragraphs that South Jersey alleges no arbitration provision-specific fraud, but rather challenges the arbitration provision only as part of its general challenge of the contract. Indeed, South Jersey states in its brief that “[fjraud is a defense that is generally applicable to all contracts and can invalidate a whole contract or certain portions thereof, including arbitrations [sic] agreements.” (Appellee Br. 4 (citation omitted).)

Even before Rent-A-Center, however, it was plain that a wholesale fraud defense could not defeat a clear arbitration provision. Almost fifty years ago, the Supreme Court confronted “the question whether the federal court or an arbitrator is to resolve a claim of ‘fraud in the inducement,’ under a contract governed by the [FAA], where there is no evidence that the contracting parties intended to withhold that issue from arbitration.” Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395, 396-97, 87 S.Ct. 1801, 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967). The Court held that, “if the claim is fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itself—an issue which goes to the ‘making’ of the agreement to arbitrate—the federal court may proceed to adjudicate it.” Id. at 403-04, 87 S.Ct. 1801. “But,” the Court added, “the [FAA] does not permit the federal court to consider claims of fraud in the inducement of the contract generally.” Id. at 404, 87 S.Ct. 1801; accord Rent-A-Ctr., 561 U.S. at 70-72, 130 S.Ct. 2772 (noting that challenges to a contract as a whole are not relevant to a court’s determination of the enforceability of the arbitration clause, which is treated as severable).

In light of this clear and longstanding precedent, we conclude that South Jersey’s claim of fraud should be left for the arbitrator’s consideration. We accordingly turn to South Jersey’s second argument in favor of invalidating the arbitration provision—that the provision is unenforceable under Nebraska law.

B. The Effect of the Nebraska Statute

On its face, South Jersey’s contention that the RPA’s arbitration provision is rendered unenforceable by the Nebraska Statute appears to target the arbitration provision alone, rather than the contract as a whole. This argument, however, suffers from the same defect as South Jersey’s fraud argument because—regardless of whether the Nebraska Statute reverse-preempts the FAA—that statute must first be shown to apply to the arbitration provision at issue. We determine that it is not clear that the short but obscure RPA falls within the ambit of the Nebraska Statute.

South Jersey, as the party seeking to avoid the arbitration provision, bears the burden of showing that it falls within Subsection (f)(4) of the Nebraska Statute. See, e.g., Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 92, 121 S.Ct. 513, 148 L.Ed.2d 373 (2000) (“[T]he party seeking to avoid arbitration bears the burden of establishing that Congress intended to preclude arbitration of the statutory claims at issue.” (citation omitted)).

The Nebraska Statute provides in relevant part:

(b) A provision in a written contract to submit to arbitration any controversy thereafter arising between the parties is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, except upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract, if the provision is entered into voluntarily and willingly.
(f) Subsection (b) of this section does not apply to:
(4) Except as provided in section 44-811, any agreement concerning or relating to an insurance policy other than a contract between insurance companies including a reinsurance contract.

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2602.01 (emphases added).

In Kremer v. Rural Community Insurance Co., 280 Neb. 591, 788 N.W.2d 538, 550 (2010), the Nebraska Supreme Court stated that, “under § 25-2602.01(f)(4), agreements to arbitrate future controversies concerning an insurance policy are invalid.” Noting that “[e]very federal appellate court .to address this issue has held that state laws restricting arbitration provisions in insurance contracts regulate the business of insurance and are not preempted by the FAA,” id. at 552 (citations omitted), the Nebraska Supreme Court “conclude[d] that a statute precluding the parties to an insurance contract from including an arbitration agreement for future controversies regulates the insurer-insured contractual relationship,” id. at 553. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that it did not consider dispos-itive “whether statutes restricting arbitration agreements in insurance policies affect the transfer of risk.” Id. at 552. This language, while dicta, strongly suggests that Subsection (f)(4) of the Nebraska Statute' applies only to insurance policies themselves, and that “any agreement” must be read as an arbitration agreement or provision within such a policy, rather than a derivative investment contract.

South Jersey’s assertion that “the RPA clearly relates to, concerns and actually issues a workers’ compensation policy to [South Jersey]” (Appellant Br. 7) is not sufficient to carry South Jersey’s burden of demonstrating that the RPA is an “agreement concerning or relating to an insurance policy” within the meaning of the Nebraska Statute. First, the argument fails to address what degree of “concern” or “relation” to an insurance contract is necessary to bring an agreement under Subsection (f)(4). Second, that assertion is at odds with South Jersey’s own argument that Applied Underwriters is not an insurer, as well as with Applied Underwriters’s contention that the RPA is an investment instrument. Finally, the District Court never found that the RPA falls within the ambit of the Nebraska Statute, despite repeatedly expressing concern as to the indecipherability of the RPA. (See App. 139, 141, 148, 151, 167, 176.)

Faced with a disputed agreement whose fundamental nature remains ob~ scure, we conclude that, by the clear and comprehensive arbitration provision in the RPA, it is for the arbitrator to determine what the precise nature of the RPA is and whether the RPA falls within Subsection (f)(4). This challenge, like the fraud challenge, implicates the RPA as a whole; like the fraud challenge, therefore,- the question, of whether the RPA’s arbitration provision is enforceable under Nebraska law is a question for the arbitrator.

y. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons we will vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand the matter. If the District Court determines that the parties agree to arbitrate this dispute in New Jersey, we direct that the District Court refer the matter to arbitration. On the other hand, if the District Court determines that there is no such agreement, then the District Court shall decide, in the first instance, how to proceed in light of its inability to compel arbitration- in the default location provided for in the contract. See Econo-Car Int’l, Inc. v. Antilles Car Rentals, Inc., 499 F.2d 1391, 1394 (3d Cir. 1974) (noting the requirement that “arbitration ‘shall be within the district in which the petition for an order directing such arbitration is filed’ ” (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 4)).

      . As noted throughout this opinion, the precise nature and effect(s) of the RPA are both actively disputed by tire parties and unclear from the face of the document itself.

      . South Jersey bases this assertion on the following language from the RPA; "During the Active Term of this Agreement, Workers’ Compensation Insurance coverage will be provided to Participant by one or more of the Issuing Insurers.” (Appellee Br. 7 (quoting App. 97).)

      . Reinsurance can be viewed as “ 'insurance for insurance companies,' .., whereby a rein-sured ... cedes some of its risk to a reinsurer ... and shares its premium with the reinsurer.” Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 489 F.3d 580, 582 n.1 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Am.Nat’l Ins. Co., 417 F.3d 727, 729 n.1 (7th Cir. 2005)).
      "[A] reinsurance treaty involves an agreement by a reinsurer 'to accept an entire block of business from the reinsured.,.. Because a treaty reinsurer accepts an entire block of business, it does not assess , the individual risks being reinsured; rather, it evaluates the overall risk pool.’ ” Id. at 582 (omission in original) (quoting N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reins. Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1199 (3d Cir, 1995)).

      . As the District Court noted, the calculus is, of course, more complicated than premiums minus claims paid, because the policy tail would permit claims to continue well beyond the policy term.

      . The District Court asked counsel how that amount was calculated but never received an explanation, and the record remains obscure on this point. .

      . Section 2 of the FAA provides:
      A written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction, or the refusal to perform the whole or any part thereof, or an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy arising out of such a contract, transaction, or refusal, shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.
      9 U.S.C. § 2.

      .The M-FA provides in relevant part that ‘‘[n]o Act of Congress shall be construed to invalidate, impair, or supersede any law enacted by any State for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance, or which imposes a fee or tax upon such business, unless such Act specifically relates to the business of insurance[.]” 15 U.S.C. § 1012, Thus, ‘‘[hinder [the M-FA], state laws reverse[-]preempt federal laws if (1) the state statute was enacted ‘for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance,’ (2) the federal statute does not ‘specifically relate to the business of insurance,’ and (3) the federal statute would ‘invalidate, impair, or supersede’ the state statute.” Suter v. Munich Reins. Co., 223 F.3d 150, 160 (3d Cir. 2000).

      . We do not decide here whether the Nebraska Statute reverse-preempts the FAA because South Jersey has not persuaded us that the Nebraska Statute is applicable to the contract at issue. To determine its applicability, the precise function and contours of the RPA must be elucidated, and that is a matter for the arbitrator under the parties’ clear and expansive arbitration agreement.

      . We note that this construction of the Nebraska Statute, which reads the phrase “any agreement concerning or relating to an insurance policy” narrowly, comports with the MFA, which permits reverse-preemption only by those state statutes "regulating the business of insurance.” 15 U.S.C. § 1012.

      . Paragraph 13(1) of the agreement provides: “All arbitration proceedings’ shall be conducted in the English language in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association and shall take place in Tortola, British Virgin Islands or at some other location agreed to by the parties." (App. 99.)


author: BARBARA MILANO KEENAN, Circuit Judge: FLOYD, Circuit Judge,

text:
    Suhail Najim Abdullah AL SHIMARI; Taha Yaseen Arraq Rashid; Salah Hasan Nusaif Al-Ejaili; Asa’ad Hamza Hanfoosh Al-Zuba’e, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Sa’ad Hamza Hantoosh Al-Zuba’e, Plaintiff, v. CACI PREMIER TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and Timothy Dugan; CACI International, Inc.; L-3 Services, Inc., Defendants. Professors of Constitutional Law and Federal Courts; Juan E. Mendez, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture; Retired Military Officers; American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch; Alberto Mora, Former General Counsel, U.S. Department of the Navy; Abukar Hassan Ahmed, Dr. Juan Romagoza Arce, Zita Cabello, Aziz Mohamed Deria, Carlos Mauricio, Gloria Reyes, Oscar Reyes, Cecilia Santos Moran, Zenaida Velasquez, and Bashe Abdi Yousuf, Amici Supporting Appellants, Professional Services Council-The Voice of the Government Services Industry; Coalition for Government Procurement; KBR, Inc., Amici Supporting Appellee.
    No. 15-1831
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Argued: May 12, 2016
    Decided: October 21, 2016

      ARGUED: Baher Azmy, CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, New York, New York, for Appellants. John Frederick O’Connor, Jr., STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Katherine Gallagher, CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, New York, New York; Robert P. LoBue, PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP, New York, New York; Shereef Hadi Akeel, AKEEL & VALENTINE, P.C., Troy, Michigan; Jee-na Shah, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS & INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS CLINIC, Newark, New Jersey, for Appellants, Stephen I. Vladeck, Washington, D.C.; Charles S. Barquist, Los Angeles, California, Betre M. Gizaw, MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Professors of Constitutional Law and Federal Courts. Eric L. Lewis, A. Katherine Toomey, James P. Davenport, Waleed Nassar, LEWIS BAACH PLLC, Washington, D.C.; Melissa Hooper, HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST, New York, New York, for Amici Retired Military Officers. Dror Ladin, Hina Shamsi, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, New York, New York, for Amici American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. George M. Clarke, III, BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP, Washington, D.C.; Alberto Mora, Carr Center For Human Rights Policy, HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOL, Cambridge, Massachusetts, for Amicus Alberto Mora. William J. Aceves, CALIFORNIA WESTERN SCHOOL OF LAW, San Diego, California; Deena • R. Hurwitz, International Human Rights Law Clinic, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Juan E. Mendez. L. Kathleen Roberts, Nushin Sarkarati, THE CENTER FOR JUSTICE & ACCOUNTABILITY, San Francisco, California; Michael E. Tigar, Oriental, North Carolina; Ali A. Beydoun, UNROW HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACT LITIGATION CLINIC, Washington, D.C., for Amici Abukar Hassan Ahmed, Dr. Juan Romagoza Arce, Zita Cabello, Aziz Mohamed Deria, Carlos Mauricio, Gloria Reyes, Oscar Reyes, Cecilia Santos Moran, Zenaida Velasquez, and Bashe Abdi You-suf. Lawrence S. Ebner, Lisa N. Himes, Tami Lyn Azorsky, Jessica C. Abrahams, DENTONS US LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Professional Services Council-The Voice of the Government Services Industry, and Coalition for Government Procurement. Raymond B. Biagini, Daniel L. Russell Jr., Herbert L. Fenster, COVING-TON ' & BURLING LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus KBR, Incorporated.
    Before KEENAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

      . We observe that the September 2003 IROE memorandum authorized aggressive interrogation tactics to be used under certain conditions, including the use of stress positions and “sleep management.” The later, superseding memorandum removed these tactics.

   Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge KEENAN wrote the opinion, in which Judge FLOYD and Judge THACKER joined. Judge FLOYD wrote a separate concurring opinion.

BARBARA MILANO KEENAN, Circuit Judge:

Suhail A1 Shimari, Taha Rashid, Salah Al-Ejaili, and Asa’ad Al-Zuba’e (the plaintiffs), four Iraqi nationals, alleged that they were abused while detained in the custody of the United States Army at Abu Ghraib prison, located near Baghdad, Iraq, in 2003 and 2004. They were detained beginning in the fall of 2003, and ultimately were released without being charged with a crime. In 2008, they filed this civil action against CACI Premier Technology, Inc. (CACI), which provided contract interrogation services for the military at the time of the alleged mistreatment.

In their third amended complaint, the plaintiffs alleged pursuant to the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, that CACI employees committed acts involving torture and war crimes, and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The plaintiffs also asserted various tort claims under the common law, including assault and battery, sexual assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

This case is before this Court for the fourth time. In our most recent decision, we remanded the case to the district court to conduct jurisdictional discovery on the issue whether the political question doctrine barred the plaintiffs’ claims. On remand, after reopening discovery, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint on the ground that it presented a non-justiciable political question. The court based its decision on three grounds: (1) that the military exercised direct control over interrogation operations at Abu Ghraib; (2) that adjudication of the-plaintiffs’ claims would require the court improperly to question sensitive military judgments; and (3) that the court lacked any judicially manageable standards to resolve the plaintiffs’ claims.

The plaintiffs once again appeal. Upon our review, we conclude that the district court erred in its analysis by failing to determine whether the military exercised actual control over any of CACI’s alleged conduct. We hold that conduct by CACI employees that was unlawful when committed is justiciable, irrespective whether that conduct occurred under the actual control of the military; We further hold that acts committed by CACI employees are shielded from judicial review under the political question doctrine if they were not unlawful when committed and occurred under the actual control of the military or involved sensitive military judgments."

We therefore vacate the district court’s judgment. We remand the case for the district court to re-examine its subject matter jurisdiction under the political question doctrine in accordance with the above holdings.

I.

We recounted the circumstances underlying the plaintiffs’ complaint and the complicated procedural history of this case at length in our previous opinion, Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc., 758 F.3d 516 (4th Cir. 2014) (Al Shimari III). We will review here only the facts relevant to the present appeal.

Following the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States took control of Abu Ghraib prison (Abu Ghraib), a facility located near Baghdad, Iraq that previously was under the control-of Saddam Hussein. Upon assuming control of the facility, the United States military used the prison to detain criminals, enemies of the provisional government, and other persons held for interrogation related to intelligence gathering. Due to a shortage of military interrogators, the United States government entered into a contract with CACI to provide additional interrogation services at Abu Ghraib.

As documented in a later investigation conducted by the United States Department of Defense, “numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees” at Abu Ghraib between October and December 2003. Al Shimari III, 758 F.3d at 521 (citing Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, Article 15-6 Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade 16 (2004) (Taguba Report)). Department of Defense investigators concluded that CACI interrogators as well as military personnel engaged in such abusive conduct. Id. (citing Taguba Report at 48 and Maj. Gen. George R. Fay, Article 15-6 Investigation of the Abu Ghraib Detention Facility and 205th Military Intelligence Brigade 7-8, 84, 86-87, 89, 116-17, 132-35 (2004)). Numerous service members were disciplined administratively or punished under military law by court martial for conduct related to these acts. Some service members received significant terms of imprisonment for their role in these offenses.

The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that CACI interrogators entered into a conspiracy with low-ranking military police officials to commit abusive acts on the plaintiffs, in order to “soften up” the detainees so that they would be more responsive during later interrogations. The plaintiffs further alleged that they were victims of a wide range of mistreatment, including being beaten, choked, “subjected to electric shocks,” “repeatedly shot in the head with a taser gun,” “forcibly subjected to sexual acts,” subjected to sensory deprivation, placed in stress positions for extended periods of time, deprived of food, water, and sleep, threatened with unleashed dogs and death, and forced to wear women’s underwear.

Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged that CACI interrogators “instigated, directed, participated in, encouraged, and aided and abetted conduct towards detainees that clearly violated the Geneva Conventions, the Army Field Manual, and the laws of the United States.” According to the plaintiffs, most of these acts of abuse occurred during the nighttime shift at the prison, in order to reduce the likelihood that nonparticipants would learn of this conduct. The plaintiffs contend that these acts of abuse were possible because of a “command vacuum” at Abu Ghraib, caused by the failure of military leaders to exercise effective oversight over CACI interrogators and military police.

CACI moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint on several grounds, including the political question doctrine, federal preemption, derivative sovereign immunity, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the ATS. The district court denied the defendants’ motion, holding in part that the plaintiffs’ claims did not present a political question. Nevertheless, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ ATS claims, because CACI was a private party rather than a governmental actor, and opined that those claims could only proceed under diversity or federal question jurisdiction.

On appeal, a panel of this Court concluded that the plaintiffs’ claims were preempted by federal law under the Supreme Court’s decision in Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 108 S.Ct. 2510, 101 L.Ed.2d 442 (1988). Al Shimari v. CACI Int’l, Inc., 658 F.3d 413 (4th Cir. 2011) (Al Shimari I), vacated, 679 F.3d 205 (4th Cir. 2012) (en banc). On rehearing en banc, this Court vacated the panel decision and dismissed CACI’s appeal as interlocutory. Al Shimari v. CACI Int’l, Inc., 679 F.3d 205 (4th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (Al Shimari II).

On remand from Al Shimari II, the district court reinstated the plaintiffs’ ATS claims, but dismissed without prejudice the plaintiffs’ claims alleging a conspiracy between CACI and the military. The district court dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations the common law claims brought by all the plaintiffs except A1 Shimari. In response, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint to supplement their allegations of conspiracy, limit their common law claims to A1 Shimari, and name CACI as the only defendant. The third amended complaint (the complaint) is the complaint at issue in this appeal.

In April 2013, shortly after the third amended complaint was filed, the deadline for discovery on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims expired. The same week, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1659, 185 L.Ed.2d 671 (2013), which imposed certain limitations on extraterritorial application of the ATS. Relying on Kiobel, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ ATS claims, because the underlying conduct occurred exclusively in Iraq. The district court also dismissed Al Shimari’s common law tort claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), holding that Iraqi law did not permit imposition of liability on CACI.

On appeal from that decision, in AI Shi-mari III we concluded that the district court had jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ ATS claims under the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Kiobel. 758 F.3d 516 (4th Cir. 2014). Although CACI also argued that the case should be dismissed pursuant to the political question doctrine, we declined to decide the political question issue based on the limited appellate record available at the time. Instead, we vacated the district court’s order dismissing the ATS and common law claims, and remanded the entire case for the district court to develop the factual record regarding the extent of the military’s control over CACI interrogators and whether CACI’s intended defenses raised any political issues. Id. at 536-37.

On remand from Al Shimari III, the district court reopened the record for jurisdictional discovery on the issue of the political question doctrine, although it appears that minimal, if any, additional discovery was taken. As noted above, following the reopened discovery period, the district court dismissed all the plaintiffs’ claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on the ground that they presented a nonjusticiable political question. The plaintiffs now appeal the district court’s dismissal of their complaint on this ground.

II.

The plaintiffs contend that the district court erred in dismissing their complaint as non-justiciable under the political question doctrine. They first assert that the district court erred.in finding that the military had direct control over formal interrogations at Abu Ghraib prison, and in failing to evaluate whether the military actually exercised such control during related activities that occurred outside the formal interrogation process. In the plaintiffs’ view, we are not presented with a political question, because a “command vacuum” existed at Abu Ghraib in which the military did not exercise actual control over the conduct of the military police and the CACI interrogators.

The plaintiffs also argue that. their claims would not require the courts to evaluate sensitive military judgments because the claims challenge the legality, rather than the reasonableness, of CACI’s conduct. Separately, the plaintiffs assert that the district court erred in concluding that it lacked manageable standards for resolving their claims.

In response, CACI contends that the district court properly concluded that this case presents a political question. According to CACI, the district court’s finding that the military exercised control over interrogation operations at Abu Ghraib ends the issue of justiciability in this case. CACI also maintains that the district court correctly held,that the case is non-justicia-ble because judicial review of the interrogation tactics used would require a court to question sensitive military judgments. Finally, CACI asserts that the district court correctly concluded that it lacked manageable standards for resolving the plaintiffs’ claims. We disagree with CACI’s arguments.

III.

In reviewing a district court’s dismissal of a claim for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), we review the court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. In re KBR, Inc., Burn Pit Litig., 744 F.3d 326, 333 (4th Cir. 2014). We may consider the plaintiffs’ pleadings ás “mere evidence” on the question of jurisdiction, and may also consider.evidence outside the pleadings without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Id.

The district court is authorized to resolve factual disputes in evaluating its subject matter jurisdiction. United States ex rel. Vuyyuru v. Jadhav, 555 F.3d 337, 348 (4th Cir. 2009); Williams v. United States, 50 F.3d 299, 304 (4th Cir. 1995); Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4th Cir. 1982). However, “when the jurisdictional facts and the facts central to a tort claim are inextricably intertwined,” the district court ordinarily should withhold a determination regarding subject matter jurisdiction and proceed to the merits of the case. Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187, 193 (4th Cir. 2009).

A.

The political question doctrine derives from- the principle of separation of powers, and deprives courts of jurisdiction over “controversies which revolve around policy choices and value determinations constitutionally committed” to Congress or, as alleged in this case, to the executive branch. Japan Whaling Ass’n v. Am. Cetacean Soc’y, 478 U.S. 221, 230, 106 S.Ct. 2860, 92 L.Ed.2d 166 (1986). This doctrine is a “narrow exception” to the judiciary’s general obligation to decide cases properly brought before the courts. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1421, 1427, 182 L.Ed.2d 423 (2012).. Although most military decisions are committed exclusively to the executive branch, a claim is not shielded from judicial review merely because it arose from action taken under orders of the military. Burn Pit, 744 F.3d at 334; see also Japan Whaling, 478 U.S. at 229-30, 106 S.Ct. 2860 (“[I]t is error to suppose that every case or controversy which touches foreign relations lies beyond judicial cognizance.”) (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 211, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Supreme Court established a six-factor test in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962) (the Baker factors), to aid courts in determining whether a case presents a political question. These factors ask whether there is: “(1) a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department, (2) a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue, (3) the impossibility of deciding the issue without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion, (4) the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution of the issue without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government, (5) an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made, or (6) the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.” Burn Pit, 744 F.3d at 334 (citing Baker, 369 U.S. at 217, 82 S.Ct. 691) (internal quotations and alterations omitted).

In Taylor v. Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., 658 F.3d 402 (4th Cir. 2011), we considered the proper application of the Baker factors to cases involving the civil liability of a government contractor in a negligence case. We distilled the Baker factors into two questions for consideration in determining whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction in a suit against a government contractor. We first asked “whether the government contractor was under the ‘plenary’ or ‘direct’ control of the military” (direct control). Al Shimari III, 758 F.3d at 533 (quoting Taylor, 658 F.3d at 411). Second, we asked whether “national defense interests were ‘closely intertwined’ with military decisions governing the contractor’s conduct, such that a decision on the merits of the claim ‘would require the judiciary to question actual, sensitive judgments made by the military.’ ” Id. at 533-34 (quoting Taylor, 658 F.3d at 411). An affirmative response to either of the two Taylor factors, namely, the fact of direct control or the need to question sensitive military judgments, generally triggers application of the political question doctrine. Id.

The plaintiff in' Taylor, a Marine who ' suffered' inj mies' resulting from an electrical shock sustained on a military base in Iraq, asserted a negligence claim against a government contractor based on the contractor’s activation of a generator while the plaintiff was performing work on a wiring box. 658 F.3d at 403-04. We concluded that because the contractor intended to assert as a defense that the military was contributorily negligent, the district court would be forced to “question actual, sensitive judgments made by the military.” Id. at 411-12 (internal quotation marks omitted). We therefore held that the political quéstión doctrine deprived the court of jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs negligence claim. Id. at 412.

Our holding in Taylor reflected our concern that when national defense interests are at stake, courts must carefully assess the extent to which these interests may be implicated in any litigation of a plaintiffs claims involving the conduct of a military contractor. Taylor, 658 F.3d at 409-10. We give this question particular attention because courts are ill-equipped to evaluate discretionary operational decisions made by, or at the direction of, the military on the battlefield. See generally Carmichael v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Servs., Inc., 572 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2009).

B.

The present case requires us to examine the factors and related considerations discussed in Taylor. However, because Taylor was a negligence case and the present case involves allegations of intentional acts, we frame our analysis in accordance with that distinction.

i.

As stated above, the first Taylor factor asks whether' the acts occurred while the government contractor was under the direct control of the military. Taylor, 658 F.3d at 411. In Al Shimari III, we also described this factor in terms of “the extent to which military personnel actually exercised control” over the contractor’s acts. Al Shimari III, 758 F.3d at 535. In the present case, after considering this first Taylor factor, the district court credited the evidence that the military maintained formal control over the interrogations, and concluded that the case presented a political question depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

In the district court, the evidence regarding the military’s control over the CACI interrogators proceeded on parallel tracks, with evidence demonstrating formal military control presented alongside evidence showing that the military failed to exercise actual control over the interrogators. With regard to formal control, the record shows that the military was in charge of the official command structure at Abu Ghraib and instituted procedures governing the interrogation process. For example, in September and October 2003, military leadership located in Baghdad issued two memoranda establishing the particularized rules of engagement for interrogations (IROEs) conducted at Abu Ghraib, which authorized the use of several, specific interrogation techniques. In addition, all interrogators were required to submit interrogation plans to the military chain of command for advance approval. These plans specified the interrogation methods that the particular interrogators intended to employ and included requests for separate approval of more aggressive tactics, if necessary.

Other evidence in the record, however, indicated that the military failed to exercise actual control over the work conducted by the CACI interrogators. In one government report, an investigator unequivocally concluded that military leaders at Abu Ghraib “failed to supervise subordinates or provide direct oversight” of the mission, and that the “lack of command presence, particularly at night, was clear.” Lt. Gen. Anthony R. Jones,' AR 15-6 Investigation of the Abu Ghraib Prison and 205th Military Intelligence Brigade 1137 (2004). The same report emphasized that interrogation operations were “plagued by a lack of an organizational chain of command presence and by a lack of proper actions to establish standards and training” by senior leadership. Id. Additional evidence in the record also indicates that CACI interrogators ordered low-level military personnel to mistreat detainees. This evidence supported the plaintiffs’ contention that the formal command authority held by the military did not translate into actual control of day-today interrogation operations.

The above evidence of a “command vacuum” raises the question whether the military exercised actual control over any interrogation-related activities during which the challenged conduct occurred. Also, through operation of the Army Field Manual and IROEs, the military may have expressly prohibited the use of certain interrogation methods, but failed to enforce these prohibitions in practice.

Rather than addressing the issue of actual control, the district court began and ended its analysis by drawing conclusions based on the evidence of formal control. This approach failed to address the full scope of review that the district court needed to conduct on remand. We explained in A1 Shimari III that the record was inconclusive “regarding the extent to which military personnel actually exercised control over CACI employees in their performance of their interrogation functions.” Al Shimari III, 758 F.3d at 535. We further observed that we were “unable to determine the extent to which the military controlled the conduct of the CACI interrogators outside the context of required interrogations, which is. particularly concerning given the plaintiffs’ allegations that ‘[m]ost of the abuse’ occurred at night, and that the abuse was intended to ‘soften up’ the detainees for later interrogations.” Id. at 536.

We thus asked the district court to consider whether the military actually controlled the CACI interrogators’ Job performance, including any activities that occurred outside the formal interrogation process. The first Taylor factor is not satisfied by merely examining the directives issued by the military for .conducting interrogation sessions, or by reviewing any particular interrogation plans that the military command approved in advance. Instead, the concept of direct control encompasses not only the requirements that were set in place in advance of the interrogations, but also what actually occurred in practice during those interrogations and related activities.

In examining the issue of direct control, when a contractor engages in a lawful action under the actual control of the military, we will consider the contractor’s action to be a “de facto military decision[ ]” shielded from judicial review under the political question doctrine. Taylor, 658 F.3d at 410. However, the military cannot lawfully exercise its authority by directing a contractor to engage in unlawful activity. Thus, when a contractor has engaged in unlawful conduct, irrespective of the nature of control exercised by the military, the contractor cannot claim protection under the political question doctrine. The district court failed to draw this important distinction. Accordingly, we conclude that a contractor’s acts may be shielded from judicial review under the first prong of Taylor only to the extent that those acts (1) were committed under actual control of the military; and (2) were not unlawful.

ii.

We turn now to consider the district court’s treatment of the second Taylor factor, which asks whether a decision on the merits of the claim would require the court to “question actual, sensitive judgments made by the military.” Al Shimari III, 758 F.3d at 533-34 (quoting Taylor, 658 F.3d at 411). The district court concluded that the plaintiffs’ claims were non-justiciable under this second Taylor factor. The court explained that it was unequipped to evaluate whether the use- of certain “extreme interrogation measures in the theatre of war” was appropriate or justified. In the court’s view, adjudicating the plaintiffs’ claims would impinge on the military’s authority to select interrogation strategies and rules of engagement. Debates existing within the executive branch at that time regarding the propriety of certain aggressive interrogation tactics, reinforced the court’s conclusion.

We conclude that the above analysis that the district court conducted was incomplete. In addressing the second Taylor factor, the district court erred in failing to draw a distinction between unlawful conduct and discretionary acts that were not unlawful when committed.

The commission of unlawful acts is not based on “military expertise and judgment,” and is not a function committed to a coordinate branch of government. See Carmichael, 572 F.3d at 1282 (emphasis omitted). To the contrary, Congress has established criminal penalties for commission of acts constituting torture and war crimes. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340A, 2441. Therefore, to the extent that the plaintiffs’ claims rest on allegations of unlawful conduct in violation of settled international law or criminal law then applicable to' the CACI employees, those claims fall outside the protection of the political question doctrine. On remand, the district court must first segregate such justiciable claims in its analysis before proceeding to determine whether any claims alleging conduct that was not unlawful implicated sensitive military judgments under the second prong of Taylor.

iii.

In reaching this conclusion, we emphasize the long-standing principle that courts are competent to engage in the traditional judicial exercise of determining whether particular conduct complied with applicable law. See El-Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. United States, 607 F.3d 836, 842 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (majority opinion) (“[T]hat a case may involve the conduct of the nation’s foreign affairs does not necessarily prevent a court from determining whether the Executive has exceeded the scope of prescribed statutory authority or failed to obey the prohibition of a statute or treaty.”); cf. Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 11-12, 93 S.Ct. 2440, 37 L.Ed.2d 407 (1973) (“[W]e neither hold nor imply that the conduct of the National Guard is always beyond judicial review or that there may not be accountability in a judicial forum for violations of law for specific unlawful conduct by military personnel.”) (emphasis added). Accordingly, when a military contractor acts contrary to settled international law or applicable criminal law, the separation of powers rationale underlying the political question doctrine does not shield the contractor’s actions from judicial review. See Baker, 369 U.S. at 217, 82 S.Ct. 691.

For the same reasons, this principle generally renders justiciable claims against a government contractor alleging a statutory violation. See El-Shifa, 607 F.3d at 851 (Ginsburg, J., concurring in the judgment). The adjudication' of such a claim requires a court only to engage in the traditional judicial function of “say[ing] what thé law is,” and of determining how that law applies to the facts of a particular case, rather than passing judgment on a discretionary policy choice. Burn Pit, 744 F.3d at 334 (quoting Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)).

The Supreme Court likewise has explained that' the political question doctrine does not strip courts of their authority to construe treaties and agreements entered into by the executive branch, despite the potential political implications of judicial review. Japan Whaling, 478 U.S. at 230, 106 S.Ct. 2860. Courts thus retain the ability to apply traditional rules of statutory interpretation to the facts presented, in a particular case. Id. Conducting a “textual, structural, and historical” examination of a statute or treaty “is what courts do” and typically is not barred by the political question doctrine. Zivotofsky, 132 S.Ct. at 1427, 1430; see also El-Shifa, 607 F.3d at 856 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in the judgment) (“The Supreme Court has never applied the political question doctrine in a case involving alleged statutory violations.”) (emphasis in original).

iv.

Applying' the Taylor factors in accordance with the above-stated principles, we hold that any conduct of the CACI employees that occurred under the actual control of the military or involved sensitive military judgments, and was not unlawful when committed, constituted a protected exercise of discretion under the political question doctrine. Conversely, any acts of the CACI employees that were unlawful when committed, irrespective whether they occurred under actual control of the military, are subject, to judicial review. Thus, the plaintiffs’ claims are justiciable to the extent that the challenged conduct violated settled international law or the criminal law to which the CACI employees were subject at the time the conduct occurred. Cf. Japan Whaling, 478 U.S. at 230, 106 S.Ct. 2860; Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 536, 124 S.Ct. 2633, 159 L.Ed.2d 578 (2004) (explaining that “a state of war is not a blank check for the President” with respect to individual rights) (opinion of O’Connor, J.).

We remain mindful, however, that this - dichotomy between lawful discretionary acts and unlawful activity will not always be clear when applied to particular conduct. Although alleged conduct that on its face is aggravated and criminal in nature, such as sexual assault and beatings, clearly will present, a subject for judicial review unaffected by the political question doctrine, other conduct may not be capable of such clear categorization. In instances in which the lawfulness of such conduct was not settled at the time the conduct occurred, and the conduct occurred under the actual control, of the military or involved sensitive military judgments, that conduct will not be subject to judicial review. Cf. Viet. Ass’n for Victims of Agent Orange v. Dow Chem. Co., 517 F.3d 104, 123 (2d Cir. 2008) (dismissing claims under the ATS because the plaintiffs did not “ground[ ] their claims arising under international law in a norm that was universally accepted at the time of the events giving rise to the injuries alleged”). The absence of clear norms of international law or applicable criminal law regarding the lawfulness of a particular mode of treatment will render that “grey area” conduct non-justi-ciable under the political question doctrine, as long as the conduct was committed under the actual control of the military or implicated sensitive military judgments.

Here, the plaintiffs alleged pursuant to the ATS that CACI interrogators engaged in a wide spectrum of conduct amounting to torture, war crimes, and/or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, as well as various torts under the common law. Among other things, the plaintiffs alleged that they were subjected to beatings, stress positions, forced nudity, sexual assault, and death threats, in addition to the withholding of food, water, and medical care, sensory deprivation, and exposure to extreme temperatures. Counsel for CACI conceded at oral argument that at least some of the most egregious conduct alleged, including sexual assault and beatings, was clearly unlawful, even though CACI maintains that the plaintiffs cannot show that CACI interrogators perpetrated any of these abuses.

We decline to render in the first instance a comprehensive determination of which acts alleged were unlawful when committed, or whether the plaintiffs have stated claims to relief that could survive a motion filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Nevertheless, as noted above, some of the alleged acts plainly were unlawful at the time they were committed and will not require extensive consideration by the district court. Accordingly, on remand, the district court will be required to determine which of the alleged acts, or constellations of alleged acts, violated settled international law and criminal law governing CACI’s conduct and, therefore, are subject to judicial review. The district court also will be required to identify any “grey area” conduct that was committed under the actual control of the military or involved sensitive military judgments and, thus, is protected under the political question doctrine.

This “discriminating analysis,” see Baker, 369 U.S. at 211, 82 S.Ct. 691, will require the district court to examine the evidence regarding the specific conduct to which the plaintiffs were subjected and the source of any direction under which the acts took place. If disputed facts are “inextricably intertwined” with the facts underlying the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, the district court should resolve these disputed jurisdictional facts along with the intertwined merits issues. See Kerns, 585 F.3d at 193.

C.

Distinct from its holding of non-justiciability under Taylor, the district court separately concluded under the second Baker factor that the case lacked manageable standards for judicial resolution of the plaintiffs’ claims. The court emphasized that its general lack of expertise in applying international law, and thé difficulty of determining the constraints of such law, also rendered the case non-justiciable. We disagree with the district court’s conclusion.

Unlike in negligence cases calling into question military standards of conduct, the district court in the present case is called upon to interpret statutory terms and established international' norms to resolve the issues presented by the ATS claims. See Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 249 (2d Cir. 1995) (“[U]niversally recognized norms of international law provide judicially discoverable and manageable standards for adjudicating suits brought under the Alien Tort Act.”). Compare also Carmichael, 572 F.3d at 1287 (“[0]nly the military was in a position to meaningfully balance [the] risks [of the mission] in light of its broader strategies and objectives; and only the military possessed the competence to make the many critical tactical decisions concerning the safest and most efficacious way to conduct the convoy.”), with Japan Whaling, 478 U.S. at 230, 106 S.Ct. 2860 (noting courts’ competency to apply traditional rules of statutory interpretation, even in cases presenting “political overtones”).

With regard to the present case, the terms “torture” and “war crimes” are defined at length in the United States Code and in international agreements to which the United States government has obligated itself. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A (implementing the United States’ obligations as a signatory of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment); 18 U.S.C. § 2441 (prescribing criminal penalties under the United States Code for “war crimes,” including “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions). Courts also have undertaken the challenge of evaluating whether particular conduct amounts to torture, war crimes, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. See, e.g., United States v. Belfast, 611 F.3d 783, 828 (11th Cir. 2010) (torture); Kadic, 70 F.3d at 243 (war crimes and torture); Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886 F.Supp. 162, 187 (D. Mass. 1995) (torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment). Likewise, in his common law claims, Al Shimari has alleged familiar torts based on long-standing common law principles.

Although the substantive law applicable to the present claims may be unfamiliar and complicated in many respects, we cannot conclude that we lack manageable standards for their adjudication justifying invocation of the political question doctrine. In reaching this conclusion, we agree with the observation that courts may not “decline to resolve a' controversy within their traditional competence and proper jurisdiction simply because the question is difficult, the consequences weighty, or the potential real for conflict with the policy preferences of the political branches.” Zivotofsky, 132 S.Ct. at 1432 (Sotomayor, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment); cf. Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 536, 124 S.Ct. 2633 (“Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake.”) (opinion of O’Connor, J.).

IV.

We recognize that the legal issues presented in this case are indisputably complex, but we nevertheless 'cannot abdicate our judicial role in such cases. Nor will we risk weakening prohibitions under United States and international law against torture and war crimes by questioning the justiciability of a case merely because the case involves the need to define such terms. The political question doctrine does not shield from judicial review intentional acts by a government contractor that were unlawful at the time they were committed.

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment, and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with the principles and instructions stated in this opinion.

VACATED AND REMANDED

FLOYD, Circuit Judge,

concurring:

I am pleased to join in Judge Keenan’s fine opinion in this case. I write separately to articulate my understanding of one aspect of our holding. I agree that the “dichotomy between lawful discretionary acts and unlawful activity will not always be clear when applied to particular conduct.” Ante at 159. In discussing this concept with the term “grey area,” ante at 159-60, I do not understand the opinion to suggest that courts cannot adjudicate close questions of lawfulness regarding military affairs. Courts can adjudicate such questions without offending the political question doctrine.

“The nonjusticiability of a political question is primarily a function of the separation of powers” under our constitutional scheme. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). That scheme does not assign military decision making to the judiciary and, as a consequence, questions of military policy are not for us to resolve. But this does not mean that every case touching military affairs is nonjusticiable. In separating the powers of government, the Constitution assigns to the judiciary the power to resolve “what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). Thus although the reasonableness of military conduct may not be justiciable, the lawfulness of that conduct assuredly is. Cf., e.g., Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 128 S.Ct. 2229, 171 L.Ed.2d 41 (2008); Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 126 S.Ct. 2749, 165 L.Ed.2d 723 (2006).

The precise contours of “what the law is” may be uncertain until a court evaluates the lawfulness of specific conduct. For example, despite repeated judicial application of torture laws, see ante at 161, the precise legal scope of the prohibition on torture is not perfectly defined. There is, in other words, conduct for which the judiciary has yet.to determine the lawfulness: loosely, a grey area.

But this greyness does not render close torture cases nonjusticiable merely because the alleged torturer was part of the executive branch. While executive officers can declare the military reasonableness of conduct amounting to torture, it is beyond the power of even- the President to declare such conduct lawful. The same is true for any other applicable legal prohibition. The fact that the President—let alone a significantly inferior executive officer—opines that certain conduct is lawful does not determine the actual lawfulness of that conduct. The determination of specific violations of law is constitutionally committed to the courts, even if.that law touches military affairs. Cf., e.g., Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 11-12, 93 S.Ct. 2440, 37 L.Ed.2d 407 (1973).

Of course the fact that a claim is justiciable under the political question doctrine says very little about that claim’s procedural or substantive merits. Among other things, a claim may be inadequately alleged, barred by other jurisdictional doctrines, or ultimately not proven., “In instances in which the lawfulness of ... conduct was not settled at the time the conduct occurred,” ante at 159, a defendant may be able to avoid liability through the doctrine of qualified immunity, the ATS requirement that conduct violate customary international law, the requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 that a claim be stated for which relief may be granted, or other applicable law. See, e.g., Viet. Ass’n for Victims of Agent Orange v. Dow Chem. Co., 517 F.3d 104, 123 (2d Cir. 2008) (adjudicating and dismissing claims brought pursuant to the ATS because the plaintiffs did not allege conduct proscribed by a sufficiently universal customary international law norm). However, the judiciary is well equipped to adjudicate such issues without impermissibly answering political questions.

      . The court also dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs’ claims against the parent company of CACI, CACI International, and the conspiracy claims against individual CACI employees.

      . Notably, after eight years of litigation, to date only one of the plaintiffs has been deposed in this case, because the United States government has not allowed the plaintiffs to enter the United States.

      . Generally, investigative government reports of this nature are admissible as an exception to the rule against hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(A)(iii).

      . The United States Department' of the Army Field Manual 34-52, Intelligence Interrogation (Sept. 28, 1992) (the Field Manual or Manual), in effect at the time of the alleged events in this case, states that interrogations must occur within the "constraints” of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as well as the Geneva Conventions. Id. preface at iv-v. The Manual expressly prohibits ‘‘[p]hysical or mental torture and coercion,” defining "torture” as "the infliction of intense pain to body or mind to extract a confession or information, or for sadistic pleasure." Id. at 1-8. The Manual also lists examples of prohibited practices, including some of the techniques challenged in this case, such as electric shocks, food deprivation, "[a]ny form of beating,” “[f]orcing an individual to stand, sit, or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged periods of time,” mock executions, and "[a]bnormal sleep deprivation.” Id. The Field Manual cautions that any "[s]uch illegal acts are not authorized and will not be condoned” by the military. Id.

      . Given the nature of the claims alleged in this case, we are not presented at this stage of the litigation with “policy choices and value determinations” embedded within a claim alleging a violation of customary international law. See El-Shifa, 607 F.3d at 843-44 (majority opinion) (citation omitted) (holding non-justiciable a claim under the law of nations requiring the court to determine whether a U.S. military attack was “mistaken and not justified”).

      . We decline CACI’s invitation to rely on out-of-circtiif precedent cited in its letter submitted to the Court after oral argument. These citations are not the proper subject of a submission pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j). And, in any event, these' authorities only reinforce our view that, when a plaintiff's claim challenges a core foreign policy decision made by the political branches of government, the political question doctrine bars review.

      . As with the ATS claims, to the extent that conduct underlying the common law claims was unlawful, those claims also will be justiciable. We observe, however, that certain allegations underlying the common law claims may involve conduct that, although tortious under the common law, did not constitute a violation of applicable criminal or international law. A nonconsensual touching that might constitute battery, or conduct that might amount to intentional infliction of emotional distress, under the common law nevertheless may have been an interrogation tactic that the military lawfully could have authorized. Accordingly, we express no view on the justiciability of common law claims alleging conduct that was not unlawful at the time. We leave this determination to the district court in the first instance.
      In the event that the district court determines that any of the common law claims are justiciable, the court nevertheless may elect to reinstate its prior order dismissing those claims under Rule 12(b)(6), which order this Court has not yet reviewed.