Will alien tort case be next Citizens United? 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.

Continue Reading ...

Appellate Lawyer of the Week: Michael Bazyler

Michael Bazyler is a self-described passionate proponent of the importance of the Nuremberg Trials to the development of international law. He has channeled that passion into a key amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to find corporate liability for human rights violations under the Alien Tort Statute.

Roberts uses a baseball story to illustrate ethics issues

To spice up his latest annual report on the final day of 2011, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. did what after-dinner speakers have done for years: He started off with a story about baseball.

Brief of the Week: If it floats, is it a vessel?

Stanford Law School professor Jeffrey Fisher may be best known for arguing criminal procedure cases before the Supreme Court. But he also has experience with maritime law, and in a cert petition he's asking the Court whether a moored floating structure that receives power from shore and is not intended for use in maritime transportation or commerce is a vessel.

Circuit Split Watch: Mercedes-Benz and the (very) long arm of the law

Can a suit alleging brutal suppression of union agitators at a Mercedes-Benz plant in Argentina be heard in a United States court? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit recently said yes. This result perpetuates a circuit split about U.S. jurisdiction over foreign corporations, which the Supreme Court could soon review. The Court has already agreed to hear argument February 28 on related issues.

Commentary: The case for the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act

The most important piece of federal legislation in decades, the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010, has been challenged as unconstitutional. Lower federal courts differ on the question, and parties on both sides of the issue, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and about half the states, seek review of the conflicting decisions.

Appellate Lawyer of the Week: Jonathan Turley

When Jonathan Turley is not teaching at George Washington University Law School or blogging, he is a litigator whose cases can never be described as boring. In this video interview with Tony Mauro, Turley discusses his high-profile case on Utah's anti-polygamy law.

VIEW ALL VIDEO »

Long-Dead Ohio Farmer, Roscoe Filburn, Plays Crucial Role in Health Care Fight :: ABC News

Supreme Court has shown unity, but little guidance :: The Washington Post

Contraceptive mandate could face tough sledding in Supreme Court:: Los Angeles Times

A Love Supreme – Profanity and Nudity on TV :: The Daily Show