Title: Legal Accountability and International Law: Analyzing the Lawsuit Against the Trump Administration for a 2025 U.S. Missile Strike in the Caribbean
Abstract
This paper examines the 2026 federal lawsuit filed by the families of Chad Joseph and Rishi Samaroo, who were killed in a U.S. missile strike on a vessel off Venezuela’s coast in October 2025. The plaintiffs allege that the strike, part of 36 executive-ordered U.S. military operations in the Caribbean and Pacific since September 2025, violated both international and U.S. domestic law. The case hinges on two legal statutes: the Death on the High Seas Act (DOTS) and the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). By analyzing the legal framework, procedural peculiarities, and potential implications, this paper argues that the lawsuit represents a novel challenge to executive military authority and sets a precedent for holding U.S. operations accountable under humanitarian and maritime law.
- Introduction
In October 2025, a U.S. military strike targeting a suspected drug trafficking vessel in the Caribbean Sea resulted in the deaths of six individuals, including Trinidadian citizens Chad Joseph and Rishi Samaroo. Their families, represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), filed a wrongful death lawsuit in January 2026 against the U.S. government. This case marks the first legal challenge to the Trump administration’s controversial “Caribbean Campaign,” which authorized over 36 missile strikes and caused more than 120 casualties between September 2025 and January 2026. The lawsuit alleges that the strike was “manifestly unlawful,” targeting civilian fishing and farming vessels in violation of international humanitarian law (IHL) and maritime regulations. This paper evaluates the legal, political, and humanitarian dimensions of the case.
- Background: The Strike and the Plaintiffs
Victims and Context
Chad Joseph and Rishi Samaroo were civilian laborers from Las Cuevas, Trinidad and Tobago, who traveled to Venezuela to work in agriculture and fishing. On October 14, 2025, they allegedly boarded a vessel returning to Trinidad when it was struck by U.S. missiles. The lawsuit claims that the vessel was a civilian fishing boat, not a drug trafficking operation, and that the strike constituted a war crime.
Strategic Context
The 2025 missile strikes were part of the Trump administration’s intensified campaign against “narcotrafficking” in the Caribbean, framed as a counter-drug initiative. However, nonpartisan investigations and press reports later suggested that at least two-thirds of the vessels targeted were unconnected to drug operations and were instead small fishing boats. The administration defended the strikes as lawful under the 2002 Maritime Security Executive Order, which authorized the use of force against vessels engaged in “unlawful maritime activities.”
- Legal Framework
3.1. Domestic Statutes
Death on the High Seas Act (DOTS): Enacted in 1920, DOTS allows U.S. citizens to sue for wrongful deaths occurring beyond the jurisdiction of any U.S. state. The statute imposes strict liability on the party responsible for the death, provided the incident occurred on the high seas (i.e., beyond territorial waters).
Alien Tort Statute (ATS): Enacted in 1789, ATS permits foreign nationals to sue in U.S. courts for torts violating international law. In Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004), the Supreme Court clarified that ATS claims must involve “violations of norms so fundamental that any civilized system would regard them as absolute standards.”
3.2. International Law
Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST): Article 19 prohibits the use of force against vessels unless authorized by international law.
International Humanitarian Law (IHL): The 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions mandate that attacks must distinguish between civilian and military targets.
- Case Analysis: Legal and Procedural Arguments
4.1. Plaintiffs’ Claims
The lawsuit asserts two primary legal violations:
DOTS Violation: The U.S. government is strictly liable for Joseph and Samaroo’s deaths, as they were killed on the high seas (Caribbean Sea, ~200 nautical miles from the U.S. coast) in a military operation.
ATS Violation: The strike constituted an illegal use of force under the Law of the Sea and a war crime under IHL, warranting redress under ATS.
The plaintiffs also argue that the strike violated U.S. constitutional due process and the principle of non-intervention in Venezuela, a sovereignty concern under international law.
4.2. U.S. Government Defense
The administration is likely to assert:
National Security Exception: The strikes were lawful under the 2002 Executive Order, targeting “unlawful maritime activities.”
Immunity Doctrine: The U.S. government enjoys sovereign immunity for acts of war, a principle in Totten v. United States (2008).
ATS Inapplicability: The Supreme Court’s decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (2013) restricts ATS to cases with sufficient ties to the U.S., which the government may argue is absent here.
4.3. Precedent and Novelty
This case could expand ATS jurisprudence to military operations outside U.S. war zones. While ATS was historically used to litigate torture, this case introduces it to disputes over the legality of armed conflict. Similarly, DOTS has rarely been tested in cases involving state actors, offering a new avenue for accountability.
- Implications
5.1. Legal Implications
A favorable ruling could pressure the U.S. to revise its “drone strike” and “missile strike” policies, ensuring compliance with IHL.
It may deter future unilateral military actions without congressional authorization, reinforcing the separation of powers.
5.2. Diplomatic and Humanitarian Impact
The Caribbean Basin and Latin American nations, which have criticized the strikes as overreach, may gain leverage in diplomatic negotiations.
The case aligns with global efforts to criminalize the targeting of civilians in asymmetric conflicts.
5.3. Precedent for Future Litigation
If successful, the lawsuit could enable victims of other unlawful U.S. military actions (e.g., strikes in Yemen or Libya) to pursue similar claims. Conversely, a dismissal may signal ongoing impunity for executive military campaigns.
- Conclusion
The lawsuit against the Trump administration for the October 2025 missile strike represents a landmark moment in the intersection of executive power, international law, and civil rights litigation. By invoking DOTS and ATS, the plaintiffs seek to hold the U.S. government accountable for alleged violations of fundamental norms. While the case faces significant legal hurdles, particularly under ATS, it underscores the evolving role of U.S. courts in adjudicating global conflicts. The outcome will likely shape the legal and ethical boundaries of military intervention for generations.
Keywords: Missile strike, Alien Tort Statute, Death on the High Seas Act, International Humanitarian Law, U.S. executive power, Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago..