Supreme Court puts limits on reach of human rights law
The decision undercuts what had been a growing area of international human rights litigation in US courts. The federal statute allows foreign residents to file civil lawsuits in US courts for violations of international law.
The US Supreme Court on Wednesday significantly limited the scope of a 224-year-old federal statute that allows foreign residents to file civil lawsuits in US courts for violations of international law.Skip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
The high court said it would apply a general presumption that the 1789 Alien Tort Statute (ATS) does not extend US jurisdiction to human rights violations that take place in a sovereign foreign country.
The decision undercuts what had been a growing area of international human rights litigation in US courts seeking to hold multinational corporations accountable for human rights abuses that take place in foreign countries where they are conducting business.
Human rights groups denounced the decision as a setback, while business groups praised it as a step forward in helping to clarify liability for international corporations.
“The US 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,” Thomas Donohue, president of the US Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement.
Elisa Massimino, president of Human Rights First, said the ruling “gutted” the statute. “This decision cuts a hole into the web of accountability,” she said. “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.”
The case before the court involved a 2002 lawsuit against Royal Dutch Petroleum by 12 Nigerians charging that the oil company aided and abetted the Nigerian military in human rights abuses against the local population in the oil-rich Ogoni region in the 1990s.
The suit included allegations of torture, extrajudicial execution, arbitrary detention, and crimes against humanity from 1992 to 1995, during a government crackdown against local residents protesting environmental damage because of oil exploration and production.
Lawyers for the oil company argued that corporations cannot be held liable in US courts for alleged violations of international law under the ATS. They urged the high court to declare that the ATS does not extend to conduct by non-US foreign corporations in a foreign country.
Human rights lawyers urged the courts to uphold broad enforcement efforts under the ATS, arguing that nothing in the text of the 1789 statute restricts its scope.
A federal judge upheld much of the suit, but an appeals court ruled that corporations could not be sued under the ATS for violations of the law of nations.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court affirmed the appeals court decision dismissing the case, but on grounds that the suit was barred by a presumption that US laws do not apply in foreign countries unless Congress clearly states that they shall.
Five of the court’s nine justices agreed that the presumption against extraterritoriality should apply in the Nigeria case.
The four other justices agreed with the majority that the case should be dismissed, but they disagreed with Chief Justice Roberts’s application of the extraterritoriality principle.