Supreme Court Seems Ready to Limit Human Rights Suits Against Corporations - The New Yo... - 0 views
www.nytimes.com/...corporations-human-rights.html
US Supreme Court Mali Nestle Lawsuit Ivory Coast Human Rights
shared by yehbru on 02 Dec 20
- No Cached
-
The Supreme Court, which has placed strict limits on lawsuits brought in federal court based on human rights abuses abroad, seemed poised on Tuesday to reject a suit accusing two American corporations of complicity in child slavery on Ivory Coast cocoa farms.
-
The case was brought by six citizens of Mali who said they were trafficked into child slavery as children
-
A 2004 Supreme Court decision, Sosa v. Álvarez-Machain, left the door open to some claims under the law, as long as they involved violations of international norms with “definite content and acceptance among civilized nations.”
- ...8 more annotations...
-
The claim plaintiffs bring alleges something horrific: that locaters in Mali sold them as children to an Ivorian farm where overseers forced them to work,” Mr. Katyal said
-
The plaintiffs sued under the Alien Tort Statute, a cryptic 1789 law that allows federal district courts to hear “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.”
-
They sued Nestlé USA and Cargill, saying the firms had aided and profited from the practice of forced child labor.
-
“Even where the claims touch and concern the territory of the United States,” he wrote, “they must do so with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritorial application.”
-
The court said foreign corporations may not be sued under the 1789 law, but it left open the question of the status of domestic corporations.
-
In Tuesday’s case, Nestlé USA v. Doe, No. 19-416, the companies sought to expand both sorts of limitations. They said the 1789 law did not allow suits even when some of the defendants’ conduct was said to have taken place in the United States, and they urged the court to bar suits under the law against all corporations, whether foreign or domestic.
-
Those questions suggested that the court could rule for the companies without making a broad statement about corporate immunity
-
Mr. Katyal said there were ways to hold such a corporation accountable. But he said the 1789 law was not one of them