The Vietnamese Agent Orange lawsuit

There is no basis for any of the claims of plaintiffs under the domestic law of any nation or state or under any form of international law. The case is dismissed.

VAVAO claims to represent a putative class of some four million Vietnamese nationals

VAVAO claims to represent a putative class of some four million Vietnamese nationals who contend they have been exposed to, and injured by, herbicides

It is contended that the acts of defendants adversely affecting plaintiffs constitute violations of the laws and customs of war, also known as war crimes

She attributes all these problems to exposure to herbicides manufactured by defendants.

Herbicide spraying by the United States violated no rights of plaintiffs under international law.

for the purposes of this 12(b)(6) motion, should be characterized as herbicides and not poisons.

While their undesired effects may have caused some results analogous to those of poisons in their impact on people and land

Defendants are not culpable civilly under international law.

In view of the decision on the law in this memorandum there is no need to pursue this issue at this time.

rejected Defendants’ contentions and found in Plaintiffs’ favor on a number of issues

Plaintiffs sought money damages as well as injunctive relief in the form of environmental abatement, clean-up, and disgorgement of profits.

manufactured by defendants-appellees United States companies (collectively, “Defendants”) and deployed by the United States military during the Vietnam War.

Defendants also argued that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit, that their claims under the Alien Tort Statute were nonjusticiable under the political question doctrine, and that all of their claims were barred by the government-contractor defense.

Because we agree with the conclusions reached by the District Court in this case, we affirm the judgment

norm prohibiting the wartime use of Agent Orange that is defined with the degree of specificity required by Sosa.

the record before us supports the conclusion that Agent Orange was used as a defoliant and not as a poison designed for or targeting human populations.

Inasmuch as Agent Orange was intended for defoliation and for destruction of crops only, its use did not violate the international norms relied upon here, since those norms would not necessarily prohibit the deployment of materials that are only secondarily, and not intentionally, harmful to humans.

the United States government submitted a Statement of Interest supporting Defendants’ position

But, to date, the United States never has agreed that it has a legal duty to provide funds or assistance to remediate harms allegedly caused by Agent Orange.

Significantly, the 1995 Agreement makes no provision for reparations or restitution to settle claims arising out of the use by the United States of herbicides, including Agent Orange.

for injuries allegedly sustained by their exposure to Agent Orange and other herbicides

Plaintiffs’ domestic tort law claims were barred by the government-contractor defense

08-470 VIETNAM ASSN. FOR VICTIMS V. DOW CHEMICAL CO., ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

08-460 ISAACSON, JOE, ET AL. V. DOW CHEMICAL CO., ET AL. 08-461 STEPHENSON, DANIEL R., ET AL. V. DOW CHEMICAL CO., ET AL. The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.

does not recognize any legal liability for damages alleged to be related to Agent Orange.

it has been comparatively reluctant to support or assist programs designed to address the health problems of Vietnamese nationals