Supreme Court Limits Human Rights Suits

In a case closely watched by human rights groups and multinational corporations, the Supreme Court today narrowed the ability of foreign victims of human rights abuses to turn to U.S. Courts for alleged violations of international law committed abroad.

The case was brought by 12 Nigerian plaintiffs against Royal Dutch Shell headquartered in the Netherlands. The Nigerians, who were granted asylum and are now living in the U.S., claimed that Shell aided and abetted human rights violations in Nigeria between 1992 and 1995. They sought to sue the corporation under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), a federal law that allows foreigners to bring lawsuits in U.S. federal court for violations of human rights law.

But today the Court barred the suit from going forward.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, "The question here is not whether petitioners have stated a proper claim under the ATS, but whether a claim may reach conduct occurring in the territory of a foreign sovereign."

Roberts wrote that in the Nigerians' case that "all the relevant conduct took place outside the United States."

"And even where the claims touch and concern the territory of the United States, they must do so with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritorial application, " he wrote.

"Corporations are often present in many countries, and it would reach too far to say that mere corporate presence suffices."

Jonathan Hafetz , a professor of law at Seton Hall University School of Law, said that today's decision "says that unless there is a sufficiently strong nexus to the United States, the ATS can't be used to enforce human rights violations."

For the last 30 years, human rights groups had used the ATS to hold human rights violators accountable to their victims. Several groups criticized today's decision.

"This decision so severely limited a law that has for decades been a beacon of hope for victims of gross human rights violations. The United States has been a leader in the fight against impunity, but this decision cuts a hole into the web of accountability," said Human Rights First's president, Elisa Massimino, in a statement. " Human rights abusers may be rejoicing today, but this is a major setback for their victims, who often look to the United States for justice when all else fails," she said.

Hafetz says the message today's decision sends is that "human rights advocates can no longer rely in the same way on U.S. Courts to remedy human rights abuses that occur in a foreign country."

Peter Rees, Shell's legal director, reacted to the decision in a statement: "In our view, the Court has reached the right decision. Shell remains firmly committed to supporting fundamental human rights in line with the legitimate role of business, and I want to make clear that we deny, in the strongest possible terms, the allegations made by the plaintiffs in this tragic case. Today's decision doesn't weaken the human rights of people around the world; it makes it clear that the Alien Tort Statute does not provide a means for claims to be brought in the U.S. which have nothing to do with the U.S."

The decision was praised by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "The U.S. Supreme Court's decision today ensures that trial lawyers cannot continue to use the American judicial system to expose global businesses to frivolous and costly lawsuits," said Thomas J. Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber. "Today's decision helps to ensure that America will continue to be an attractive place to do business and removes barriers for companies looking to do business throughout the world."

Paul Hoffman, the lead counsel for the Nigerian petitioners, said today, "We are deeply disappointed on behalf of our clients and their case in the Court's decision." He called the opinion a "terrible blow to our clients after a very long search for justice."

Roberts was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Kennedy and Alito also wrote separately. Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by the liberals on the Court (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor), wrote an opinion agreeing with the Court's judgment to bar the suit from going forward, but not in the Court's reasoning.

"I would not invoke the presumption against extraterritoriality," Breyer wrote. He said he would find jurisdiction under the ATS when the conduct occurs on American soil, the defendant is an American national, or the defendant's conduct "substantially and adversely affects an important American national interest." Breyer wrote, "That includes a distinct interest in preventing the United States from becoming a safe harbor" for a torturer.

Hoffman said that it is "much less clear" what the decision means for the future. "From reading all the opinions, the Court is still uncertain to the extent of claims that arise outside the United States."

Hoffman pointed to a concurrence written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. "My sense is that what Justice Kennedy was saying is that he hasn't made up his mind about where he would draw the line. " Hoffman noted that there are several similar ATS cases pending across the country.

"The cases involving US corporations are going to be the strongest cases to survive this ruling" said Hoffman. "The cases that are going to have more difficulty will be cases involving foreign corporations and cases involving corporations with less connection to the United States."

Also Read

View the original article here

Supreme Court declines to hear gun rights case

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Staying out of the raging national debate over guns, the Supreme Court on Monday declined to weigh in on whether gun owners have a constitutional right to carry handguns outside the home.

The court decided not to hear a challenge to a New York state law that requires those who want to carry a concealed handgun to show they have a special reason before they can get a license.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and Christopher Wilson)

View the original article here

Atty Gen: wants voting rights provision upheld

WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Eric Holder has challenged the Supreme Court to uphold a key section of the Voting Rights Act. That's the section that requires all or part of the 16 states with a history of discrimination to get federal clearance before carrying out changes in elections.

Holder made the comments in a speech prepared for delivery to a civil rights group founded and led by the Rev. Al Sharpton. Focusing on issues he regards as important during President Barack Obama's second term in office, Holder vowed to protect the voting rights of all Americans, safeguard young people from gun violence and improve the criminal justice system.

View the original article here

AG Holder: wants voting rights provision upheld

WASHINGTON (AP) — On the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's death, Attorney General Eric Holder challenged the Supreme Court to uphold a key section of the Voting Rights Act that requires all or part of 15 states with a history of discrimination to get federal clearance before carrying out changes in elections.

Holder made the comments Thursday in a speech to a civil rights group whose founder and president is the Rev. Al Sharpton. Focusing on issues he regards as important during President Barack Obama's second term in office, Holder vowed to protect the voting rights of all Americans, safeguard young people from gun violence and improve the criminal justice system.

Opponents of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 say the pre-clearance requirement has outlived its usefulness. Starting in 2009, the Supreme Court made clear its skepticism about the present-day need for the provision. The court is considering a challenge on the issue from Shelby County, Ala., near Birmingham.

Since 2010, at least 10 lawsuits have been filed arguing that the pre-clearance requirement is no longer constitutional, said Holder.

"Let me be clear: While this country has indeed changed, and real progress has been made, we are not yet at the point where the most vital part of the Voting Rights Act can be described as unnecessary or a product of a flawed political process," the attorney general told the National Action Network.

"As we await the court's decision, I want to assure you that — no matter the outcome — the Department of Justice will remain committed to the aggressive and appropriate enforcement of all voting and civil rights protections, including every part of the Voting Rights Act," Holder said.

Voting rights have long been a centerpiece of Holder's law enforcement agenda. In a speech just over a year ago at the Johnson Presidential Library, Holder declared that the nation needs elections that are more, not less, accessible to the voters.

The Justice Department went on to challenge some newly enacted state laws requiring voters to present photo IDs at polling places on Election Day. Republicans said photo IDs were needed because of widespread voter fraud at the polls, a problem that Democrats said was non-existent. In an appearance before the NAACP in Houston, the attorney general likened the voter ID law in Texas to a poll tax, the fees once imposed across much of the South that made it impossible for many African Americans to vote.

As the nation's chief law enforcement officer, Holder has for months joined the president in calling for an array of gun control measures in the wake of the shootings that killed 20 first-graders and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. The proposals include universal background checks, a ban on high-capacity magazines and an assault weapons ban. Those measures are in trouble on Capitol Hill.

On Thursday, Holder said the package of gun control proposals "is consistent with the Second Amendment and would not infringe — in any way — on the rights of responsible, law-abiding gun owners."

"Many have said that these will be tough votes, and I understand that the gun lobby will attack some who support reform. But progress is never easy," Holder said.

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama stepped up his call for background checks for all gun purchases and renewed his demand that Congress at least vote on banning assault weapons and limiting access to large-capacity ammunition magazines. Key senators have been unable to reach a bipartisan compromise that would require federal background checks for gun transactions between private individuals. Federal background checks currently apply only to sales handled by licensed gun dealers.

On improving the criminal justice system, Holder said the government is providing increased support for programs offering quality legal representation to people who cannot afford it. He said the Obama administration is focused on more effective policing at the state and local levels, using intelligence-based strategies to target law enforcement resources to areas where they're most needed and seeking new ways to help crime victims — especially victims of sexual assault — to make their lives whole again.

View the original article here

Analysis: Supreme Court energizes gay rights even as it resists

By Joan Biskupic

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - After two days of Supreme Court arguments over same-sex marriage, the United States may be left with this irony: While the high court is not likely to alter the constitutional landscape for gays, the justices nevertheless have provided a rallying point for the gay-rights cause.

Three major legal outcomes appeared likely as the justices on Wednesday ended the second dramatic day of arguments in the most closely watched dispute of their current term:

* The court would not rule that gay people need special constitutional protection from discrimination.

* The court would not declare a nationwide right to same-sex marriage.

* At the same time, a majority would rule narrowly that the federal government must provide married same-sex couples the same benefits it gives their heterosexual counterparts.

Yet just as the nine black-robed justices made clear that they did not wish to play a leading role in the national conversation about same-sex marriage, they showed they could nonetheless raise its volume. Simply by agreeing to hear the two disputes - one over California's ban on same-sex marriage, the other over the federal law denying benefits to same-sex couples - the justices energized the debate.

Numerous public figures including former President Bill Clinton, who in 1996 signed the law forbidding same-sex couples from obtaining federal benefits, and prominent groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics in recent weeks came out vigorously in support of same-sex marriage and gay civil rights.

Individual members of Congress - Democrats and Republicans - suddenly voiced new support for gay marriage.

Perhaps most dramatically, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, considered a possible future Republican presidential contender, earlier this month announced he was reversing his opposition to such same-sex marriage, citing the fact that his son two years earlier had told him he was gay.

Opponents of gay marriage have not witnessed any similar high-profile testimonials from people who were switching to their side. Recent opinion polls, taken in association with the Supreme Court's decision to take up the gay-marriage cases, have documented a surge in public support for same-sex unions.

The new cases also pushed the Obama administration to break new legal ground.

President Barack Obama had personally endorsed gay marriage but he had long asserted that same-sex marriage was a matter for the states to handle. At the last minute, however, his administration decided to enter the California dispute and argue that federal guarantees of constitutional equality forbid states from limiting marriage to heterosexuals.

The administration also contended that gays deserve extra constitutional protection from bias, as the Supreme Court has afforded women fighting sex discrimination.

Yet as much as the justices effectively propelled others to take a stand, they showed by their own comments and questions from the bench this week that they do not intend to be at the vanguard.

The lawyers who appeared on Tuesday and Wednesday were passionate in their presentations, yet none seemed to seize the justices and generate equal fervor.

To be sure, there were moments of excitement, including some sharp exchanges between lawyers and individual justices such as when Justice Elena Kagan challenged an attorney's assertion that government's overriding interest in marriage relates to procreation and childbearing.

'UNCHARTED WATERS'

There was also the suspense of what swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy might say. Kennedy sent conflicting messages at times, expressing concern about the children of gay parents who cannot marry but then suggesting the justices should be wise to stay out of "uncharted waters" on the issue.

There were moments of tedium, too, as the justices wrestled with procedural issues that could prevent them from deciding the merits of either case.

Such hurdles would likely prevent any decision on California's Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. A majority of the justices signaled they might not reach the merits, most likely because California state officials have declined to defend the law and Proposition 8 backers may lack "legal standing" in the case.

A court majority most certainly would not conclude - as the challengers to Proposition 8 argued on Tuesday - that all 50 U.S. states must allow same-sex marriage. Currently nine states permit such marriages, along with Washington, D.C.

Nothing that emerged in oral arguments on Wednesday over a provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) would suggest that the justices had any second thoughts about delving into the larger issues of gay marriage. In fact, their comments reinforced the notion that a majority on the generally conservative court is not ready to carve out new rights for gays.

The Obama administration and other challengers to DOMA had urged the court to declare that government rules tied to sexual orientation deserve "heightened" scrutiny, meaning that the government needs an exceedingly persuasive justification for the regulation.

If the court were to adopt such a level of constitutional protection for gays, as it has in the gender-discrimination context, bans on same-sex marriage would be legally undermined. But that proposition for tougher judicial scrutiny in gay-bias cases gained no traction at the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that the national activity surrounding this week's cases might have demonstrated that gays are, in fact, a political force in no need of special protection.

"As far as I can tell, political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case," Roberts told lawyer Roberta Kaplan, who was representing a New York woman denied a federal estate-tax exemption because her spouse was another woman, not a man.

Roberts may have been referring to national figures including Portman whose endorsement of gay marriage coincided with the court's consideration of the matter.

In the same vein, a record number of "friend of the court" briefs were submitted in the paired cases, most favoring gay rights. In yet another unusual move, marking one of corporate America's most high-profile efforts on same-sex marriage, close to 300 businesses urged the court to strike down the DOMA restriction. (Thomson Reuters Corp, which owns Reuters, was among them.)

Outside the marble-columned Supreme Court building, demonstrators rallying for gay marriage dominated the scene.

So no matter how this court ultimately rules - a decision is expected by late June - it seems clear that the justices' mere involvement was a boost to the gay-rights cause, at least in the court of public opinion.

(Reporting by Joan Biskupic; Editing by Eric Effron and Will Dunham)

View the original article here