U.S. top court curbs human rights claims against companies

Reuters ^ | April 24, 2018 | Larence Hurley

[Lurking Libertarian]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that foreign corporations cannot be sued in American courts for human rights abuses overseas, refusing to revive a lawsuit claiming Jordan-based Arab Bank Plc helped finance militant attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

The 5-4 decision brought to an end a lawsuit brought by some 6,000 non-U.S. citizen plaintiffs, including survivors and relatives of people killed in attacks, filed under a 1789 U.S. law called the Alien Tort Statute that accused Arab Bank of being the “paymaster” to militant groups.

The court ruled along ideological lines, with its five conservatives in the majority and its four liberal justices dissenting.

Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said the “relatively minor connection between the terrorist attacks at issue in this case and the alleged conduct in the United States” illustrates the problems of extending liability to foreign corporations.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Part of a trend by the Court's conservatives to keep foreign-based disputes out of U.S. courts. Unfortunately, in this case, it will result in a lot of victims of Arab terrorism being denied any effective forum.

[WayneS]

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that foreign corporations cannot be sued in American courts for human rights abuses overseas.

Why would anyone think otherwise?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Why would anyone think otherwise?

The plaintiff's legal argument was based on a law passed back in 1789, and still on the books, which says that an "alien" can sue in U.S. federal court for a "tort in violation of the law of nations." Their factual argument was that payments used to fund terrorism were funneled through bank accounts in New York.

[WayneS]

Interesting.

Is there a definition of a “tort in violation of the law of nations.”?

[ExTxMarine]

Liberals don’t want our military to be the world’s cop (and truly neither do I, but until some other countries step to the plate we may be required to continue to be the sole military super power), but Liberals DO want our courts to be the world’s judiciary system!

Can anyone explain that bipolar thought process?!?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Is there a definition of a “tort in violation of the law of nations.”?

Not in the 1789 law, which is why SCOTUS has struggled to define it in recent years. (This is not the first Alien Tort Act claim to reach SCOTUS in the last few years.)

Congress in 1789 was probably thinking about piracy-- if a Spanish pirate robbed a French ship, and took the loot to the U.S., the French shipowner could sue the pirate here.

In recent years, there have been attempts to bring suits under the Act over torture, genocide, terrorism and other things said to violate contemporary understandings of international law. The Court today basically kicked the issue back to Congress and told them to define the law better.

[Nifster]

It is not the responsibility of the US court system to redress foreign wrongs

Read Gorsuvh’s opinion. Straight forward and constitutional

If those injured want redress let them go to the vaunted world court

[Nifster]

Too bad they didn’t have a US client who was damaged

Read Girsuvh’s opinion. Straight forward and on point

[SeeSharp]

The plaintiff's legal argument was based on a law passed back in 1789, and still on the books, which says that an "alien" can sue in U.S. federal court for a "tort in violation of the law of nations." Their factual argument was that payments used to fund terrorism were funneled through bank accounts in New York.

Right, but it looks to me like the act was mostly intended to prevent state courts from getting involved in legitimate torts involving foreigners. Remember the federal courts do not have general jurisdiction over torts. Ordinarily one has to establish either that a federal law is involved in the dispute, or that there is a diversity of jurisdiction between the plaintiff and the defendant, just to get standing to file a tort claim in a federal court. The 1789 act grants sole jurisdiction over torts involving foreigners to the federal courts. I think that was all it was intended to do.

[Lurking Libertarian]

The 1789 act grants sole jurisdiction over torts involving foreigners to the federal courts. I think that was all it was intended to do.

Yes, but not all torts, only torts "in violation of the law of nations" (which was 18th Century-speak for "international law").

[Alberta's Child]

I think you’re right. Some of these legal terms from the 18th century — like “high seas,” for example — refer to places that are subject to international treaties because they don’t fall under the jurisdiction of any country.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Exactly. Article II, section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to “punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations.”