Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:46 PM Apr 2013

Supreme Court blocks overseas human rights cases from U.S. courts

The Supreme Court declared Wednesday that U.S. courts will not be the world’s forum for deciding lawsuits alleging human rights abuses by corporations and tyrants on foreign soil.

In a 9-0 decision, the high court tossed out a lawsuit brought by Nigerians against Royal Dutch Petroleum alleging the company conspired with the Nigerian regime in a campaign of rape, torture and murder in the oil-rich delta in the early 1990s.

The suit had become a test of whether U.S. courts could serve as a judicial forum for victims of gross human rights abuses abroad. Its claims were filed under the recently rediscovered Alien Tort Statute of 1789, which opened the courts to claims based on the “law of nations.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in an opinion that was joined by four other justices, moved to limit the interpretation of that law in a decision that will be welcomed by corporate America.

<snip>

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-supreme-court-overseas-human-rights-20130417,0,6638680.story

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court blocks overseas human rights cases from U.S. courts (Original Post) cali Apr 2013 OP
the following two paragraphs though are needed for the reason why all 9 voted graham4anything Apr 2013 #1
The crime happened in country "A", against citizens of country "B", GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #2
it's a little more complex than that cali Apr 2013 #3
 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
1. the following two paragraphs though are needed for the reason why all 9 voted
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:59 PM
Apr 2013

no personal opinion on this, just this paragraph or two expalins why it was unanimous
(and I was looking to see if the rightwing times actually said the crack about corporate America. That is unlike a paper to say).

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-supreme-court-overseas-human-rights-20130417,0,6638680.story


Roberts invoked the “presumption against extraterritorial application” in holding that the 1789 law does not open the courthouse door to hearing legal claims based on conduct outside of this country. “United States laws govern domestically, but do not rule the world,” he said.

Speaking in the court, Roberts said most of the human rights suits involve “foreign plaintiffs suing foreign defendants for conduct that took place on foreign soil.” There is no reason to believe that the first Congress wanted to make U.S. courts the forum for deciding disputes from around the world, he said.

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
2. The crime happened in country "A", against citizens of country "B",
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 01:01 PM
Apr 2013

by a company from country "C", none of which are the USA, yet someone wants to claim that we somehow have jurisdiction over the case. We are not the world's policeman. Sorry, but they need to go to the proper country. We don't run the world.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
3. it's a little more complex than that
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 02:19 PM
Apr 2013

The liberals agreed that the suit brought by Esther Kiobel and others could not go forward. But they disagreed with Roberts’s reasoning.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer disagreed with Roberts’ reliance on the “presumption against extraterritoriality.” He believed that the statute could still be used in some cases.

Specifically, Breyer said, when the defendant’s conduct “substantially and adversely affects an important American national interest, and that includes a distinct interest in preventing the United States from becoming a safe harbor (free of civil as well as criminal liability) for a torturer or other common enemy of mankind.”

Breyer was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-limits-civil-lawsuits-alleging-atrocities-committed-abroad/2013/04/17/d63e4cac-a76b-11e2-8302-3c7e0ea97057_story.html


Roberts was joined in the opinion by Justices Samuel Alito Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justices Stephen Breyer filed an opinion concurring in judgement only with Roberts. Breyer was joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

Though Congress has enacted statutes allowing the U.S. to both prosecute and help victims gain damage in international human rights cases, Breyer said in his opinion, the companies involved in Kiobel did not have enough of a presence on American soil.

“Their shares, like those of many foreign corporations, are traded on the New York Stock Exchange,” Breyer said. “Their only presence in the United States consists of an office in New York City (actually owned by a separate but affiliated company) that helps to explain their business to potential investors.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/17/supreme-court-rules-foreign-citizens-cant-sue-in-u-s-for-rights-violations/

Since the mid-1980s, however, human rights lawyers have invoked the Alien Tort Statute as a way to win justice for victims of foreign atrocities. The Center for Constitutional Rights called the law “a vital tool for holding individuals, corporations and governments accountable for international human rights violations, such as torture, genocide and war crimes.”

But corporate leaders here and around the world have urged the Supreme Court to rein in the law. They say corporations increasingly found themselves being targeted by suits claiming they had aided or abetted rights abuses in foreign lands.

Wednesday’s opinion by the chief justice appears to block most but not all such claims from being heard in U.S. courts. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in a concurring opinion noted that the Torture Victim Protection Act would allows suits against officials who commit acts of torture abroad.

The court's four liberal justices said they agreed that the suit against Royal Dutch should be thrown out. “Mere corporate presence” in the United States is not enough to justify suing a multinational corporation here, said Justice Stephen G. Breyer. But he said the court majority had gone too far in closing U.S. courts to deciding suits involving abuses abroad.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Supreme Court blocks over...