Jesner v. Arab Bank

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (4) ◽  
pp. 720-727
Author(s):  
Rebecca J. Hamilton
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Foreign Corporations ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

The exclusion of transnational human rights litigation from U.S. federal courts is, for most practical purposes, now complete. On April 24, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a 5–4 ruling inJesner v. Arab Bank,deciding that foreign corporations cannot be sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).

7 International Human Rights Litigation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
International Human ◽  
Victim Protection ◽  
Foreign Corporations ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

This chapter focuses on litigation under the Alien Tort Statute, which provides for jurisdiction over suits brought by aliens for torts in violation of international law. The chapter begins by exploring Congress’s likely intent in enacting the Statute in 1789, and how the Statute may have related to Article III of the Constitution (concerning the powers of the federal courts). The chapter then describes how the Statute received little attention until the Filartiga decision in 1980, which allowed for it to be used by aliens to sue other aliens for human rights abuses committed abroad. The chapter proceeds to explore a variety of doctrinal issues relating to this human rights litigation, including the source of the cause of action, the standards for bringing a claim, and the ability to sue corporations. The chapter also considers the contours of the Torture Victim Protection Act, which Congress enacted in 1992 to facilitate certain human rights claims. The chapter then discusses limitations on Alien Tort Statute litigation imposed by the Supreme Court in its 2004 decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, as well as the rise of suits brought against corporate defendants brought under the Statute. The chapter concludes by discussing the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, in which the Court substantially curtailed the territorial reach of claims that could be brought under the Statute, and the Court’s 2018 decision in Jesner v. Arab Bank, in which the Court disallowed suits under the Statute against foreign corporations.

Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe (U.S. Sup. Ct.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
William S. Dodge
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Ivory Coast ◽  
Child Slavery ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe, a human rights case brought under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), alleging that U.S. companies aided and abetted child slavery in Ivory Coast. By a vote of 8 to 1, the Court held that the claims were impermissibly extraterritorial because nearly all the conduct occurred abroad. The Court left open the possibility that the implied cause of action under the ATS applies to U.S. corporations.

scholarly journals The Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 149-155
Author(s):  
Ursula Kriebaum
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Route ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Rights Arbitration ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

Let me start with the goals of the Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration. The Business and Human Rights Arbitration Project dates back to 2013. In that year the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Kiobel v. Shell case that the U.S. Alien Tort Statute of 1789 has no extraterritorial effect. It denied victims of human rights abuses by companies access to U.S. courts to obtain damages for alleged violations. As a consequence, the idea arose that arbitration could be used as an alternative route for dispute resolution available to corporations and rights holders to resolve their disputes in the business and human rights field.

scholarly journals How the Federal Cause of Action Relates to Rights, Remedies, and Jurisdiction

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
John F. Preis
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
History Of ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction ◽  
The U.S

Time and again, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that the federal cause of action is "analytically distinct" from rights, remedies, and jurisdiction. Yet, just pages away in the U.S. Reports are other cases in which rights, remedies, and jurisdiction all hinge on the existence of a cause of action. What, then, is the proper relationship between these concepts?The goal of this Article is to articulate that relationship. This Article traces the history of the cause of action from eighteenth-century England to its modem usage in the federal courts. This history demonstrates that the federal cause of action is largely distinct from rights, closely related to (and sometimes synonymous with) remedies, and distinct from jurisdiction except where Congress instructs otherwise or the case implicates sovereign immunity. Sorting out these relationships provides several benefits, including refining the doctrine of prudential standing, clarifying the grounds for federal jurisdiction, and dispelling claims that Congress lacks power over certain causes of action.

Courtroom Proceedings in U.S. Federal Courts

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy R. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Open Court ◽  
Federal Circuit ◽  
Federal District Courts ◽  
Circuit Courts ◽  
The U.S

This article discusses courtroom proceedings in U.S. federal courts. It begins by examining how federal district courts conduct trials. To make clear how these proceedings run it compares what really happens in most trials compared to how Hollywood portrays trials. In addition, it considers several key rights associated with trial proceedings. From there, it considers how federal circuit courts conduct business in open court. A key aspect of this section is how circuit proceedings differ across the country because each circuit has different rules governing arguments. Finally, it assesses the oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court as well as how these proceedings may affect the decisions justices make. In each section it provides a descriptive overview of the processes and then discusses current research and direction for future analyses.

Reviving Human Rights Litigation After Kiobel

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (4) ◽  
pp. 858-863 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivian Grosswald Curran ◽  
David Sloss
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Death Knell ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., the Supreme Court held that “the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the [Alien Tort Statute (ATS)], and that nothing in the statute rebuts that presumption.” The Court preserved the possibility that claims arising from conduct outside the United States might be actionable under the ATS “where the claims touch and concern the territory of the United States ... with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritorial application.” However, the Court’s decision apparently sounds the death knell for “foreign-cubed” human rights claims under the ATS—that is, cases in which foreign defendants committed human rights abuses against foreign plaintiffs in foreign countries.

scholarly journals Litigation Dilemmas: Lessons from the Marcos Human Rights Class Action

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (02) ◽  
pp. 479-508
Author(s):  
Nate Ela
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Social Movement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Legal Mobilization ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

How do activist plaintiffs experience the process of human rights litigation under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS)? Answering this question is key to understanding the impact on transnational legal mobilization of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., in which the US Supreme Court sharply limited the scope of the ATS. Yet sociolegal scholars know remarkably little about the experiences of ATS litigants, before or after Kiobel. This article describes how activist litigants in a landmark ATS class action against former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos faced a series of strategic dilemmas, and how disagreements over how to resolve those dilemmas played into divisions between activists and organizations on the Philippine left. The article develops an analytical framework focused on litigation dilemmas to explain how and why activists who pursue ATS litigation as an opportunity for legal mobilization may also encounter strategic dilemmas that contribute to dissension within a social movement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document