Families of Trinidadian Men Killed in U.S. Boat Strike File Federal Wrongful Death Lawsuit
Families of two Trinidadian men killed in a U.S. military missile strike last October have filed a federal lawsuit against the United States government, alleging wrongful death and unlawful killing. The case was filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and challenges a strike that killed Chad Joseph, 26, and Rishi Samaroo, 41, as they traveled by boat from Venezuela back to Trinidad.
According to the complaint, the men were aboard a small civilian vessel on October 14 when a U.S. missile struck the boat in the Caribbean Sea. Four other people were also killed. The lawsuit states that the men were civilians with no known ties to criminal organizations and argues that the use of lethal military force against their vessel violated both U.S. and international law.
The case was brought by Lenore Burnley, Joseph’s mother, and Sallycar Korasingh, Samaroo’s sister, on behalf of the surviving family members. They are represented by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Seton Hall Law School, and the ACLU of Massachusetts.
The lawsuit challenges one strike within a broader campaign of U.S. military operations targeting small boats that the Trump administration claims are used by drug cartels and criminal networks. According to the filing, the administration has announced at least 36 such strikes since September 2025 across the Caribbean and Pacific regions, with families stating that more than 120 people have been killed.
The families argue that the October strike was unlawful because the United States is not engaged in an armed conflict in the region and therefore cannot rely on the laws of war to justify lethal force. Under international law, armed conflict is a narrowly defined legal category that applies to sustained fighting between states or organized armed groups, not to operations aimed at enforcing criminal law. The complaint further claims that even if an armed conflict existed, international humanitarian law would still prohibit indiscriminate attacks on civilian vessels and individuals not actively participating in hostilities. The filing also states that the strikes were carried out without any specific authorization from Congress, raising questions about the scope of executive power to use military force outside a declared war.
U.S. officials have publicly defended the strikes as lawful exercises of presidential authority aimed at disrupting transnational drug trafficking. According to statements cited in the filing, the administration has relied on a classified legal opinion issued by the Department of Justice asserting that the United States is engaged in a form of armed conflict with transnational criminal organizations. That opinion has not been released publicly, and its legal reasoning has not been reviewed by a court.
The lawsuit relies on two federal statutes that allow civil claims for deaths occurring outside U.S. territory. One is the Death on the High Seas Act, a maritime law that permits certain family members to seek damages when a death results from a wrongful act occurring beyond U.S. territorial waters. The filing states that Trinidadian authorities obtained coordinates confirming the strike occurred beyond both U.S. and Trinidadian territorial waters. Because such claims fall under federal admiralty jurisdiction, they may be filed in any U.S. federal court, regardless of where the incident occurred or where the victims lived.
The second statute is the Alien Tort Statute, an 18th-century law that allows foreign nationals to bring civil actions in U.S. courts for violations of well-recognized norms of international law. Courts have limited the statute’s reach in recent years, but it remains available for claims involving universally prohibited conduct such as extrajudicial killing, when families can show a sufficient connection to U.S. decision-making. The complaint also cites a federal maritime statute that waives sovereign immunity in certain admiralty cases, allowing claims to proceed against the United States for wrongful acts committed at sea.
Together, these laws form the legal basis for the families’ claims. The case centers on whether the United States may lawfully use military force against civilian vessels outside a declared war and whether such actions are subject to review in U.S. courts when foreign civilians are killed.
The complaint also outlines the personal circumstances of the men who were killed. According to the filing, Joseph lived in Las Cuevas, Trinidad, with his wife and children and traveled periodically to Venezuela for fishing and agricultural work to support his family. Samaroo had also been living in Las Cuevas and working in fishing and construction following his release on parole, later traveling to Venezuela for farm work before returning home.
Officials in Trinidad have publicly stated that they had no information linking either man to illegal activity. The filing cites statements from Trinidad’s foreign minister indicating that the government had received no evidence connecting Joseph or Samaroo to drug trafficking or cartel operations.
Separate legal challenges to the boat strike campaign have also emerged outside U.S. courts. In December, the family of a Colombian national killed in another strike filed a human rights complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, part of the Organization of American States.
The lawsuit follows public acknowledgments by U.S. officials that the strike occurred, including the release of video footage depicting the attack. According to the filing, public information about the October strike remains limited, and no evidence linking the victims to criminal activity has been disclosed.
