Will SCOTUS review Alien Tort Statute after D.C. Circuit ruling?
7/11/2011
Friday’s 151-page ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, reviving an Alien Tort Statute case accusing Exxon of abetting murder and torture in Indonesia, stands in direct contrast to a ruling last September by the Second Circuit, which determined that corporations cannot be held liable under the Alien Tort law. The issue of corporate liability under the ATS is now squarely before the U.S. Supreme Court, since the Nigerian plaintiffs in the Second Circuit case, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, filed a June 13 certiorari petition asking for review of the appellate court’s holding. So with a clear split in the circuit courts, it’s a sure bet that the Supreme Court will take the case when the justices return from their summer break, right?
Not necessarily. The issue of whether corporations-as opposed to individual corporate employees-are liable in U.S. federal courts for atrocities committed against foreign nationals has been hotly debated since the Supreme Court’s 2004 ruling in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machian raised the question in a footnote. The D.C. and Second Circuits aren’t the only appellate courts considering the questions. Lawyers for the Kiobel plaintiffs noted in their cert petition that the Eleventh Circuit has permitted ATS claims to proceed against corporations in three cases. The Seventh Circuit has already heard oral arguments testing Firestone’s liability for alleged child labor law violations in Liberia, after the case was dismissed on Kiobel grounds. And last September the Ninth Circuit heard its second en banc appeal of a case involving allegations that the mining company Rio Tinto was engaged in atrocities in Papua New Guinea.
The Kiobel lawyers, led by Paul Hoffman of Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris Hoffman & Harrison, argue that the Second Circuit’s outlier ruling in their case, coupled with the urgency of the issue of corporate ATS liability as demonstrated by the number of courts grappling with it, demands Supreme Court action. “Today corporations may be sued under the ATS for their complicity in egregious human rights violations in Miami or Atlanta, but not in New York or Hartford,” they wrote in the cert petition. “Review by this Court is necessary to eliminate the uncertainty created by this conflict for both corporations and victims of human rights violations.”
That seems like compelling logic, particularly because the Kiobel plaintiffs say the Second Circuit’s reasoning transforms “virtually every major ATS issue into a matter of subject matter jurisdiction,” representing a “radical overhaul” of precedent. But with so many other cases addressing corporate ATS liability already briefed and argued before appellate courts, the Supreme Court could just as well decide to wait and see how other circuit courts analyze the issue. It may turn out that the justices think the Exxon case or the Firestone case, for instance, is a better vehicle to review the question. (The Rio Tinto case has progressed the farthest, but because it involves a foreign corporation as well as foreign plaintiffs, it poses some additional complications.)
Consensus on corporate ATS liability has been as rare as aNational League win in the All-Star game. The D.C. Circuit panel’s Exxon ruling was 2-to-1. The Second Circuit split down the middle, 5-to-5, when it voted on whether to rehear Kiobel en banc. (Because there was a tie, rehearing was denied.) Eloquent opinions have been written on all sides of the issue, with courts finding yet more nuances in the one-sentence 1799 law and its subsequent interpretations. Royal Dutch Shell may argue that the Supreme Court should wait for the judicial reasoning to crystallize before taking on the issue.
Royal Dutch Shell, which is represented by Rowan Wilson of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, has until August 13 to submit its opposition to the plaintiffs’ cert petition.
(Reporting by Alison Frankel)
This website and sisters royaldutchshellplc.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, and shellnews.net, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.
Royal Dutch Shell conspired directly with Hitler, financed the Nazi Party, was anti-Semitic and sold out its own Dutch Jewish employees to the Nazis. Shell had a close relationship with the Nazis during and after the reign of Sir Henri Deterding, an ardent Nazi, and the founder and decades long leader of the Royal Dutch Shell Group. His burial ceremony, which had all the trappings of a state funeral, was held at his private estate in Mecklenburg, Germany. The spectacle (photographs below) included a funeral procession led by a horse drawn funeral hearse with senior Nazis officials and senior Royal Dutch Shell directors in attendance, Nazi salutes at the graveside, swastika banners on display and wreaths and personal tributes from Adolf Hitler and Reichsmarschall, Hermann Goring. Deterding was an honored associate and supporter of Hitler and a personal friend of Goring.
Deterding was the guest of Hitler during a four day summit meeting at Berchtesgaden. Sir Henri and Hitler both had ambitions on Russian oil fields. Only an honored personal guest would be rewarded with a private four day meeting at Hitler’s mountain top retreat.
IN JULY 2007, MR BILL CAMPBELL (ABOVE, A RETIRED GROUP AUDITOR OF SHELL INTERNATIONAL SENT AN EMAIL TO EVERY UK MP AND MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS: 
MORE DETAILS:
A head-cut image of Alfred Donovan (now deceased) appears courtesy of The Wall Street Journal.
