Iran, Pseudonymity, and Risk of Harm

Key Takeaways

• Court permits pseudonymous filing against IRGC and Iranian intelligence
• Plaintiff alleges decades‑long torture, surveillance, and family threats
• Risk of harm includes Iranian proxies and lone‑wolf actors in U.S.
• Decision balances privacy rights against public interest in open courts
• Grant is provisional; may change if defendants appear

Pulse Analysis

The U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) traditionally requires plaintiffs to be identified, reflecting a long‑standing presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. However, courts have carved out exceptions when a litigant’s safety is at stake, especially in cases involving foreign governments accused of human‑rights abuses. Judge Boasberg’s decision underscores that the presumption of disclosure is not absolute; it can yield to compelling privacy interests when the threat of retaliation is credible and potentially orchestrated by state‑linked actors.

In the Do v. IRGC case, the plaintiff—a naturalized American who fled Iran decades ago—asserts that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence tortured him and have continued a campaign of surveillance and physical attacks against his family. He argues that disclosure of his identity could expose him to further harm not only from the defendants but also from third‑party proxies, sleeper cells, and lone‑wolf extremists operating on U.S. soil. The court accepted this argument, noting that the risk extends beyond the direct defendants and that anonymity is essential for the plaintiff to pursue his rights under the Torture Victim Protection Act.

The ruling may influence future human‑rights litigation against foreign sovereigns, signaling that U.S. courts are willing to prioritize plaintiff safety over transparency when justified. While the order is preliminary and subject to change if the IRGC or other defendants engage in the case, it provides a procedural roadmap for other victims seeking redress without endangering themselves or their families. Litigants and counsel should now assess anonymity requests early, documenting specific threats to meet the heightened burden of proof required to override the open‑court presumption.