Weeks after the U.S. Department of State’s designation of a group of drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs), private plaintiffs filed the first civil lawsuit in a U.S. court leveraging that designation to bring Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) claims.[1] The plaintiffs—relatives and the estate of DEA Special Agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena—sued the Sinaloa Cartel (a recently-designated FTO) and three of its members for kidnapping, torturing, and murdering Camarena. What relevance does Camarena have for legitimate business? It’s a fair question. The defendants in Camarena have little or nothing in common with multinational companies operating in Latin America, and the facts at issue are far from garden-variety corporate misconduct. The answer is that plaintiffs may use the legal theories advanced in Camarena to sue and to seek to impose material liability on legitimate, mainstream businesses in a variety of industries.[2]
As we explain in greater detail here, the recent FTO designations may expose companies operating in Mexico and other Latin American countries to significant legal risk. Many FTO-designated cartels have embedded themselves in the local economy, so much so that they are difficult for legitimate businesses to avoid. And if businesses do engage with FTOs, they run the risk of being sued in the United States. For example, the ATA creates a private right of action allowing U.S. nationals injured by an act of international terrorism to sue those allegedly responsible for their injuries. When an act of terrorism is committed, planned, or authorized by an FTO, liability can extend to entities who aided and abetted or conspired with the FTO to commit terroristic acts. Defendants in ATA cases face treble damages and attorneys’ fees, in addition to litigation costs and potential reputational damage.
Even before the recent FTO designations, private plaintiffs were increasingly using the secondary liability provisions of the ATA to sue “mainstream” businesses, including financial institutions, telecommunications companies, and companies in the industrial sector. But before this round of FTO designations, the pool of potential defendants was comparatively limited; relatively few companies have commercial relationships with traditional, politically-motivated terrorist organizations, such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Many more companies, particularly those operating in Mexico or elsewhere in Latin America, may interact with FTO-designated cartels or their fronts or proxies. Camarena is a preview of the claims those companies may face.
Camarena v. Caro-Quintero
In Camarena, members of Enrique Camarena’s family and his estate seek damages from the Sinaloa Cartel and three of its members for Camarena’s kidnapping, torture, and murder. Plaintiffs allege that during 1983 and 1984, Camarena and pilot Alfredo Zavala-Avelar conducted surveillance flights across Mexico to study cartel marijuana growing operations. According to plaintiffs, the cartel learned of this surveillance, and five gunmen working for the cartel abducted Camarena off the streets of Guadalajara outside the DEA’s offices and drove him to a defendant’s home. Zavala-Avelar was allegedly kidnapped by other cartel operatives the same afternoon and taken and held at the same location. Plaintiffs allege that defendants and their co-conspirators interrogated and tortured Camarena and Zavala-Avelar for over 30 hours and later murdered both men. According to plaintiffs, these kidnappings and murders were intended to intimidate the DEA and local police and drug agencies and to discourage drug trafficking investigations.
Plaintiffs allege that Camarena’s kidnapping, torture, and murder were acts of international terrorism committed by the Sinaloa Cartel, which they note is a designated FTO, and that the individual defendants provided support such as financing, transportation, safe houses, and weapons in furtherance of the Sinaloa Cartel’s terroristic activities. Plaintiffs also allege that the individual defendants aided, abetted, conspired, or otherwise engaged in or provided material support for acts of international terrorism, including providing material support to the Sinaloa Cartel that directly facilitated its kidnapping and murder of Camarena.
Key Takeaways
Camarena’s allegations of direct involvement in torture and murder are far removed from common corporate misconduct fact patterns, but it has many of the hallmarks of civil ATA litigation that may confront companies doing business in Latin America: violent acts allegedly perpetrated by an FTO, secondary liability allegations (e.g., aiding and abetting, conspiracy, pervasive and systematic assistance), and allegations that the terroristic actions were foreseeable risks of the non-FTO defendants’ actions. The ramifications of cartel FTO designations on companies doing business in Latin America remain to be seen, but Camarena may well be a sign of things to come.
[1] Camarena v. Caro-Quintero, Case No. 25-cv-651 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2025).
[2] Last month, President Claudia Sheinbaum warned U.S. gunmakers that Mexico may use FTO designations to amend its lawsuit in the United States against U.S. gun manufacturers and vendors to include claims of aiding and abetting terrorism. See CBS News, Mexico’s President Takes Aim at U.S. Gunmakers if Cartels are Designated as Terrorist Groups (Feb. 14, 2025, 12:03 PM), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexico-president-us-gunmakers-legal-action-cartels-designated-terrorist-groups/.
