CACI Lawsuit: $42 Million Abu Ghraib Verdict Affirmed on Appeal

Three Iraqi men who were held and abused at Abu Ghraib prison won a $42 million jury verdict against military contractor CACI Premier Technology in November 2024, and in March 2026 the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that verdict. The CACI Abu Ghraib lawsuit, formally Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc., is the only case arising from the Abu Ghraib torture scandal to reach a jury in the United States. CACI has petitioned for rehearing, and a pending Supreme Court case could affect what happens next.¹

Who Sued and What They Alleged

The plaintiffs are Suhail Al Shimari, a middle school principal; Asa’ad Zuba’e, a fruit vendor; and Salah Al-Ejaili, a journalist who worked for Al Jazeera. All three were detained at Abu Ghraib’s “hard site” in 2003 and 2004.²

Their allegations included electric shocks, food deprivation, threats with dogs, forced nudity, beatings, exposure to extreme hot and cold water, and prolonged sensory-deprivation solitary confinement, in one instance for nearly a year.²

Importantly, the plaintiffs never claimed CACI interrogators personally carried out the physical abuse. Their theory was conspiracy: that CACI employees worked with low-ranking military police to “soften up” detainees before interrogations, directing and enabling the mistreatment.³

CACI’s Role at the Prison

CACI provided interrogation services to the U.S. Army at Abu Ghraib after acquiring the relevant contract assets from Premier Technology Group in May 2003.⁴ The military brought in the company because it lacked enough of its own interrogators.⁵

On paper, CACI interrogators worked under the military chain of command. The Fourth Circuit found the reality was different, noting that “later-gathered evidence reflects a command vacuum existed, wherein the military did not adequately supervise CACI personnel and CACI employees directed members of the military police regarding interrogation tactics, in contravention of the formal structures in place.”⁶

Two CACI employees featured prominently in the evidence. Steven Stefanowicz, known at the prison as “Big Steve,” was the subject of Major General Antonio Taguba’s 2004 finding that he was responsible for “allowing and/or instructing” military police to use abusive tactics and “clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse.”⁷ Taguba also found Stefanowicz made false statements to investigators. Dan Porvaznik, CACI’s site lead at Abu Ghraib, testified at trial that he “did not see any abuse”; plaintiffs’ evidence contended he lied to Army investigators and helped fabricate a cover story for an interrogator who left the prison after being disturbed by what he witnessed.⁸

No CACI employee has ever been charged criminally in connection with Abu Ghraib, a point the company emphasizes.⁹

How the Case Reached a Jury

The lawsuit was filed in 2008 and spent the next 16 years fighting through motions to dismiss and interlocutory appeals. According to the Center for Constitutional Rights, which led the plaintiffs’ legal team, the case survived more than 20 motions to dismiss.¹⁰ The Fourth Circuit heard interlocutory appeals six times.¹¹

CACI raised nearly every available defense: that the case posed a nonjusticiable political question, that the company had derivative sovereign immunity as a government contractor, that the Alien Tort Statute did not reach conduct in Iraq, and that the state secrets doctrine barred a fair trial.

Two Fourth Circuit rulings proved decisive. In 2014, the appeals court held that the plaintiffs’ ATS claims sufficiently “touched and concerned” the United States because they involved a U.S. corporation and conduct on a U.S.-controlled military facility.¹² In October 2016, the court reversed a political-question dismissal, holding that “the military cannot lawfully exercise its authority by directing a contractor to engage in unlawful activity.”¹³ In 2017, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema ruled that torture, cruel and degrading treatment, and war crimes are actionable against private parties under the ATS.¹⁴

The Mistrial and the $42 Million Verdict

The first trial took place in April 2024. CCR describes it as the first time survivors of post-9/11 U.S. torture testified in an American courtroom.¹⁰ CACI’s core defense was the “borrowed servant” doctrine: its employees were under military control, so the Army bore responsibility. The jury deadlocked and the court declared a mistrial. Jurors later told the Associated Press that a majority had wanted to hold CACI liable.¹⁵

The second trial began in October 2024. Before it went to the jury, Judge Brinkema granted judgment as a matter of law to CACI on the aiding and abetting counts, leaving two claims: conspiracy to commit torture, and conspiracy to commit cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.⁶

On November 12, 2024, the jury found CACI liable on both counts. Each plaintiff was awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and $11 million in punitive damages, for a total of $42 million.¹⁶ The jury rejected the borrowed servant defense.¹⁷ Judge Brinkema denied CACI’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial on January 10, 2025.²

The Fourth Circuit Affirms the Verdict

On March 12, 2026, a divided Fourth Circuit panel affirmed. Senior Judge Henry F. Floyd wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Stephanie D. Thacker. Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. dissented.¹

The majority rejected CACI’s arguments on extraterritoriality, the political question doctrine, derivative sovereign immunity, state secrets, Federal Tort Claims Act preemption, the borrowed servant defense, and excessive damages.⁶

On extraterritoriality, the court gave two independent rationales. First, the United States exercised “complete jurisdiction and control” over Abu Ghraib through the Coalition Provisional Authority, placing the prison effectively within U.S. territorial jurisdiction. Second, the court analogized torturers to pirates, historically subject to universal jurisdiction, reasoning that Abu Ghraib during the relevant period was a “no-man’s-land” without another sovereign’s authority. The court also concluded that CACI’s domestic conduct in Virginia, including hiring interrogators, issuing security clearances, and covering up abuse, was enough on its own to satisfy the Supreme Court’s standard in Nestlé USA v. Doe.¹

The majority also held that the prohibition on conspiring to commit torture and cruel treatment is “well-established in customary international law,” tracing the principle back to the London Charter that created the Nuremberg tribunals. Judge Quattlebaum disagreed on both the extraterritoriality analysis and the recognition of conspiracy claims under the ATS.¹

Where the Case Stands Now

The day after the ruling, CACI said it was “deeply disappointed,” disagreed with the majority, and pointed to the dissent and the absence of any criminal charges against its employees.⁹

On April 24, 2026, CACI filed a petition for rehearing with the Fourth Circuit and asked the court to hold its decision in abeyance while the Supreme Court decides Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I, a case that could narrow aiding and abetting claims under the ATS. The plaintiffs opposed the request four days later.² The Supreme Court heard argument in Cisco on April 28, 2026.¹⁸ CACI filed an amicus brief in that case, citing its own “eighteen years of litigation, six trips to the Fourth Circuit, two trials, and millions of dollars in defense costs.”¹¹

As of mid-2026, the rehearing petition is pending, the plaintiffs have not collected on the judgment, and the Cisco outcome may influence whether CACI seeks Supreme Court review.¹⁹ One boundary worth flagging: the verdict rests on conspiracy findings only. The aiding and abetting claims were removed before the jury deliberated, so the judgment does not depend on that theory.⁶

Why This Case Matters

The Al Shimari verdict is the first time a jury has found a private military contractor liable for conspiring to commit torture.²⁰ Other Abu Ghraib civil suits never got there. Al Quraishi v. Nakhla, brought by 72 Iraqi plaintiffs against L-3 Services and one of its employees, settled confidentially in 2012 without any liability finding.²¹ Saleh v. Titan, brought on behalf of 256 detainees, was dismissed in 2009.¹⁰

The Fourth Circuit’s reasoning also expanded the reach of the Alien Tort Statute in two ways that will matter for future corporate human-rights cases: treating U.S.-controlled territory abroad as functionally domestic, and reviving the historical treatment of torturers as universal-jurisdiction defendants. Whether that reasoning survives depends in part on what the Supreme Court does in Cisco.¹

1
Just Security. Fourth Circuit Affirms Jury Verdict in Abu Ghraib Case
2
Center for Constitutional Rights. Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc.
3
NPR. U.S. Jury Awards $42 Million to Detainees Mistreated While Held in Abu Ghraib Prison
4
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. CACI International Inc. SEC Filing
5
International Committee of the Red Cross Casebook. USA, Al-Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc.
6
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc.
7
NY1/AP. Retired General’s Testimony Links Private Contractor to Abu Ghraib Abuses
8
Courthouse News Service. Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology Response Brief
9
CACI International. Company Statement on Recent Litigation
10
Center for Constitutional Rights. Victory for Abu Ghraib Torture Survivors: Appeals Court Upholds Historic Verdict
11
Cornell Law Institute. Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I, No. 24-856
12
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc.
13
Justia. Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc., No. 15-1831
14
Lawfare. Al Shimari v. CACI: Further Supreme Court Guidance Needed on the Alien Tort Statute
15
Houston Public Media/NPR. A U.S. Jury Awards Former Iraqi Detainees $42 Million for Abu Ghraib Prison Abuse
16
Human Rights Watch. US: Jury Awards $42 Million to 3 Iraqis Abused at Abu Ghraib Prison
17
Just Security. Abu Ghraib and the Alien Tort Statute
18
SCOTUSblog. Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I
19
Law360. CACI Says High Court Case Will Affect Abu Ghraib Verdict
20
Torture Journal. Al Shimari et al. v. CACI and Corporate Accountability for Torture
21
Center for Constitutional Rights. Al-Quraishi, et al. v. Nakhla and L-3 Services