The U.S. Supreme Court case Mohamed Ali Samantar v. Bashe Abdi Yousuf et al., 2009, involved a former Somali official who was sued by five individuals for alleged human rights abuses committed during his time in office. The central question of the case was whether or not foreign officials are immune from lawsuits in U.S courts under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Samantar argued that he should be granted immunity as he acted on behalf of a foreign state; however, the plaintiffs contended that FSIA did not extend to individual officials. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Samantar, stating that FSIA only applies to foreign states and their agencies or instrumentalities - not individuals acting in an official capacity. This ruling allowed victims of overseas human rights abuses more leeway to seek justice through American courts.

In the case of Mohamed Ali Samantar v. Bashe Abdi Yousuf et al., there was no dissenting opinion recorded as the Supreme Court's decision was unanimous. The court ruled that former foreign officials, like Samantar, are not immune from lawsuits in U.S courts for alleged human rights abuses committed while they were in office. This ruling allowed a group of Somalis to proceed with their lawsuit against Samantar, who served as defense minister and prime minister under Somalia’s military regime during the 1980s. They accused him of overseeing torture and killings during a time of widespread civil strife in Somalia.