Background
Plaintiff-Appellant Noa Kanealii appealed the district court’s dismissal of his amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Proposed Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant Ryan Manara appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to intervene. The district court had dismissed the complaint because it did not state a federal question or diversity jurisdiction, and denied intervention because the proceeding was terminated due to lack of jurisdiction.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the dismissal de novo, taking the facts in the complaint as true. It found that the Alien Tort Statute grants jurisdiction only for torts committed by noncitizens in violation of the law of nations or a treaty. Because Hawaii is not a sovereign nation, Kanealii is an American citizen and cannot bring an ATS claim. The court also affirmed the denial of intervention, noting that a motion to intervene as of right requires an existing case or controversy, which was absent due to the lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
What it means going forward
The ruling confirms that the Alien Tort Statute does not apply to claims brought by U.S. citizens, even those asserting Hawaiian national status, and reinforces that intervention is unavailable when the underlying action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.