Keywords: alient tort statute, torture victim protection act, corporate liability
Today the Supreme Court granted certiorari in two cases of interest to the business community:
Alien Tort Statute and Torture Victim Protection Act—Corporate Liability
The Supreme Court granted certiorari today in two cases addressing whether corporations, as opposed to individuals, can be held liable in civil suits alleging human rights abuses committed abroad. The cases, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, No. 10-1491, and Mohamad v. Rajoub, No. 11-88, will be argued in tandem.
The Alien Tort Statute ("ATS") grants federal courts jurisdiction over a tort claim brought by an alien who alleges that the tort was "committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1350. Kiobel presents two questions under the ATS: first, whether the issue of corporate liability under the ATS is a question of subject matter jurisdiction; and second, whether corporations, like natural persons such as government officials, may be held liable under the ATS.
The Torture Victim Protection Act ("TVPA") creates a cause of action against "[a]n individual who, under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation" either "subjects an individual to torture" or "subjects an individual to extrajudicial killing." 28 U.S.C. § 1350, note § 2(a). Mohamad presents the question whether the term "individual," as used in the TVPA, refers only to natural persons or also encompasses corporate entities.
These cases are important to all companies that conduct business abroad and potentially face civil suits alleging human rights violations.
The Kiobel petitioners are residents of Nigeria. They sued Dutch, British, and Nigerian corporations engaged in oil exploration and production in Nigeria for allegedly aiding and abetting the Nigerian government in violently suppressing petitioners' protests against oil exploration. The Second Circuit held that petitioners' suit must be dismissed. The court found that, "although international law has sometimes extended the scope of liability for a violation of a given norm to individuals, it has never extended the scope of liability to a corporation." 621 F.3d at 120. Because "no corporation has ever been subject to any form of liability under the customary international law of human rights," the court concluded that the ATS "simply does not confer jurisdiction over suits against corporations." Id. at 121. The Second Circuit's decision conflicts with subsequent decisions of the Seventh and D.C. Circuits.
The Mohamad petitioners brought suit on behalf of Azzam Rahim's estate, alleging that the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Liberation Organization tortured and killed Rahim in violation of the TVPA and federal common law. The D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal of the suit, holding that the statutory term "individual" encompasses only natural persons and not corporations or organizations. 634 F.3d at 607.
Absent extensions, amicus briefs in support of the petitioners are due December 8, 2011, and amicus briefs in support of the respondents are due January 10, 2012..
Please visit us at appellate.net
Visit us at mayerbrown.com
Mayer Brown is a global legal services organization comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the Mayer Brown Practices). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP, a limited liability partnership established in the United States; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership, and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.
© Copyright 2011. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.
This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.
