| Click here for the Mobile version |
|
|
|
|
|
Will alien tort case be next Citizens United?
Marcia Coyle | February 1, 2012 The next Citizens United, in the view of some of that decision's most vigorous critics, may have nothing to do with campaign finance or the First Amendment. Instead, corporations in a case the justices will hear this month seek not to spend their money but to avoid doing so by arguing that they have no liability under a 1789 statute for torts committed abroad in violation of international law or U.S. treaties. The case, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., involves the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and is scheduled for argument on Feb. 28. Kiobel will be heard in tandem with Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, which raises a similar question involving claims against non-natural persons under a different statute — the Torture Victim Protection Act. Kiobel starkly pits the business community against human rights organizations. "What is being asked of federal courts in these ATS cases is to create an international law not just for American corporations, which would be one thing, but international law for all foreign corporations that we could get jurisdiction over," said international law scholar Michael Ramsey of the University of San Diego School of Law. "I don't think that's a role for federal courts or what the ATS was intended to do." But Katherine Gallagher of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which pioneered Alien Tort Statute litigation, countered, "Citizens United recognized rights of corporations. It's important in this case that we're also discussing obligations of corporations. It is particularly important as we see multinational corporations operating across borders and we see the role corporations now have globally and here at home." The Alien Tort Statute, also known as the Alien Tort Claims Act, originally appeared in Section 9 of the first Judiciary Act of 1789, which created the U.S. court system. The statute provides that "the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." The act was largely dormant until 1980 when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit decided Filartiga v. Pena-Irala. Represented by lawyers at the Center for Constitutional Rights, Dolly Filartiga filed a civil suit under the Alien Tort Statute against her brother's murderer, the former Inspector General of Police in Ascension, Paraguay, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Her lawyers argued that just as piracy was a violation of the law of nations when the Alien Tort Statute was enacted, torture was a crime against the law of nations in 1979 when her brother was murdered. The 2d Circuit agreed. Since then, there have been three waves of alien tort litigation: the prototypical Filartiga case — torture, killing or disappearance abroad committed by one alien against another alien; suits against U.S. corporations and some foreign corporations for participating in human rights abuses abroad, and suits against U.S. government officials or those acting at their direction, a wave that included the Iraq Abu Ghraib prison litigation.
|
Long-Dead Ohio Farmer, Roscoe Filburn, Plays Crucial Role in Health Care Fight :: ABC News Contraceptive mandate could face tough sledding in Supreme Court:: Los Angeles Times
Citing law firm's errors, high court rules for death row inmate Court ponders immunity for private lawyers who take on public jobs Unanimous high court finds for church in EEOC fight In indecency case, government faces tough path to victory Courtside: An early (and accidental) peek at today's orders and opinions Stevens' spirited defense of 'Kelo' Courtside: For Scalia, a Texas-sized question from 1869 On the docket: Who's arguing at the high court Appellate Lawyer of the Week: Charles Rothfeld Appellate Lawyer of the Week: Michael Foreman Appellate Lawyer of the Week: Timothy Sandefur Appellate Lawyer of the Week: Marc Rotenberg Brief of the Week: A way to avoid a First Amendment fight Brief of the Week: Guns and Misdemeanors Justices avoid another campaign finance case Brief of the Week: Another controversial case for Clement |
