Podcasts about Alien Tort Statute

In this episode, Michael and Diana talk with Catherine Sweetser, Deputy Director of the Promise Institute for Human Rights and the Director of the Human Rights Litigation Clinic at UCLA Law. Here, Professor Sweetser discusses her work against slavery and human trafficking in the global food supply chain, particularly in the context of chocolate production, the U.S. Supreme Court case Nestle USA Inc. v. Doe (2021), and how lawyers, advocates, and students can make a difference in this area.Catherine Sweetser is Deputy Director of the Promise Institute for Human Rights and the Director of the Human Rights Litigation Clinic at UCLA Law.Michael T. Roberts is the Executive Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law.Diana Winters is the Deputy Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law. You can find Nestle USA Inc. v. Doe (2021) here.The book Bitter Chocolate by Carol Off, mentioned by Professor Sweetser, can be found here.The citation for the law review article mentioned by Professor Sweetser is: Burley, Anne-Marie, The Alien Tort Statute and the Judiciary Act of 1789: A Badge of Honor, 83 Am. J. Int'l L. 461 (1989).

Czy – i jak – można pociągnąć Rosję do odpowiedzialności za zbrodnię agresji? – pyta prof. Kevin HELLER Prof. Kevin HELLER – profesor prawa międzynarodowego publicznego na uniwersytecie w Amsterdamie. Był zaangażowany w negocjacje Międzynarodowego Trybunału Karnego w sprawie zbrodni agresji, pracował jako doradca prawny Human Rights Watch w procesie Saddama Husseina, był jednym z radców prawnych Radovana Karadzicia w MTKJ, oraz był świadkiem powoda w udanej sprawie Alien Tort Statute przeciwko psychologom, którzy zaprojektowali i zarządzali programem tortur CIA. Czyta: Mateusz MLECZKO Podcasty Najważniejsze to najpopularniejsze artykuły od najważniejszych Autorów z Polski i ze świata - teraz również w formie audio. WWW: https://wszystkoconajwazniejsze.pl/podcasty/

On June 17, 2021 the Supreme Court issued its 8-1 decision in Nestle USA, Inc. V. Doe et al and the consolidated case of Cargill, Inc. v. Doe I. In this case, the Court considered the question of whether an aiding and abetting claim against a domestic corporation brought under the Alien Tort Statute can overcome the exterritoriality bar where the claim based is on allegations of general corporate activity in the United States and where the plaintiffs cannot trace the alleged harms, which occurred abroad at the hands of unidentified foreign actors, to that activity.Discussing this decision today are Julian Ku, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Faculty Director of International Programs, and Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University, Professor William S. Dodge, the John D. Ayer Chair in Business Law and MLK Jr. Professor of Law at the UC Davis School of Law and Ilya Shapiro, Vice President and Director at the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute.

Former child slaves on West African cocoa farms sue U.S. chocolate companies. The case examines whether the Alien Tort Statute covers those claims.

Former child slaves on West African cocoa farms sue U.S. chocolate companies. The case examines whether the Alien Tort Statute covers those claims.

Nestlé USA Inc v Doe (2021) is a United States Supreme Court decision regarding the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which provides federal courts jurisdiction over claims brought by foreign nationals for violations of international law. Consolidated with Cargill Inc v Doe, the case concerned a class-action lawsuit against Nestlé USA and Cargill for aiding and abetting child slavery in Côte d'Ivoire by purchasing from cocoa producers that utilize child slave labor from Mali. The plaintiffs, who were former slave laborers in the cocoa farms, brought their claim in U.S. district court under the ATS, The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the suit on the basis that corporations cannot be sued under the ATS, and that the plaintiffs failed to allege the elements of an aiding and abetting claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that corporations are liable for aiding and abetting slavery, in part because norms against slavery are "universal and absolute" and thus provide a basis for an ATS claim against a corporation; however, it did not address the argument by the defendant corporations that the complaint sought an extraterritorial application of the ATS, which the U.S. Supreme Court had recently rejected in Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. On remand, the district court again dismissed the claims, finding that the plaintiffs sought an impermissible extraterritorial application of the ATS. In the interim, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Jesner v Arab Bank, PLC, which held that foreign corporations cannot be sued under the ATS. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the holding in Jesner does not disturb its prior holding as to the domestic defendants, Nestle USA, Inc., and Cargill, Inc., and that the specific domestic conduct alleged by the plaintiffs falls within the focus of the ATS and does not require extraterritorial application of that statute. Background. Six Malians, identified as John Doe I through VI, were trafficked into Côte d'Ivoire as children and enslaved on cocoa plantations. The children, aged 12-14, were kept in harsh living conditions at the plantations, and they were forced under threat of violence to cultivate cocoa for up to fourteen hours per day without pay. The children witnessed slaves who were caught trying to escape from the plantation being tortured by guards. Most of the cocoa that the slaves cultivated on Côte d'Ivoire plantations was sold to U.S. companies such as the Nestlé and Cargill corporations and imported to U.S. markets. Nestlé and Cargill encouraged the use of child slave labor on Côte d'Ivoire plantations by supporting farmers through capital investments in equipment, training, and cash advances. They also facilitated child slavery by lobbying "against legislation intended to make the use of child slavery transparent to the public" and mislead consumers on their actions in the region. The corporations also sent representatives to inspect plantations. In return, Nestlé and Cargill get cheaper cocoa imports, increasing their profit margins. History. The case was initially filed in 2005 but dismissed by the District Court for the Central District of California in 2010. The Ninth Circuit remanded this decision, stating that the plaintiffs had standing to sue under the Alien Tort Statute—but the case was again dismissed by the district court. In oral arguments, the Malians were represented by Paul L. Hoffman, while Nestlé and Cargill were represented by Neal Katyal. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

On June 17, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its 8-1 decision in Nestle USA, Inc. v. Doe et al and the consolidated case of Cargill, Inc. v. Doe I. In this case, six people from Mali who had been trafficked as child slaves onto cocoa farms in the Ivory Coast sued under the Alien Tort Statute, arguing that since the American companies Nestle and Cargill provided financial and technical support to those farms, they should be liable for aiding and abetting human trafficking. The Ninth Circuit had reversed the District Court, finding that the respondents had adequately pled a domestic application of the Alien Tort Statute because the corporate decisions driving contracting with the Ivory Coast farms originated in the United States. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit holding that the presumption against extraterritoriality required plaintiffs to establish relevant conduct in the United States and that general corporate activity like decision making was insufficient.Justice Thomas announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett joined. Justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Sotomayor all filed concurring opinions and Justice Alito dissented.Featuring: -- Ilya Shapiro, Vice President and Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute -- William S. Dodge, John D. Ayer Chair in Business Law and Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law -- Moderator: Julian Ku, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Faculty Director of International Programs, and Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University

John Kiriakou, co-host of The Backstory on Radio Sputnik, talks to us about the news that Roger Stone is reportedly under federal investigation on his role in planning the January 6 insurrection, how investigators are looking into what role Stone may have played in radicalizing Trump supporters who joined the assault on the U.S. Capitol, and whether the video evidence presented thus far in the media is sufficient to mount a case against him. Mohammad Marandi, Professor of English Literature and Orientalism at the University of Tehran, tells us about the results of the elections in Iran where Ebrahim Raisi emerged victorious over the weekend, how the media is reporting about a hardliner victory and whether this analysis is accurate, how the low voter turnout may have affected the results, the president's priorities for the country, the reaction by neighboring countries, and whether there will be any change in the relationship between Iran, Israel and the U.S. under Raisi's presidency. Terrence Collingsworth, executive director of International Rights Advocates and labor & human rights attorney specializing in trade and international labor rights issues, talks to us about a case against Apple, Tesla, Microsoft, and Dell that argues that the tech giants knowingly profit from the use of child labor in cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where children have been maimed and even killed extracting the minerals in mines owned multinationals, whether the Alien Tort Statute will be used, as in the Nestlé/Cargill case, to try to connect abuses along the supply chain to top decision makers, and the role local and Western governments could play in exerting oversight of the way resource extraction is conducted.Tina-Desiree Berg, host of the podcast District 34 and reporter for Status Coup, joins us in a conversation about news reports coming out of Chicago about a rising crime wave in the city, and how this reporting is reproducing the “super predator” narrative and ignoring the structural components of violence and precarity. We also talk about the anti-homeless efforts by local governments around the country and how these have become even more militarized.

On a “Baker's Dozen” Episode of LegalAF (#LAF), MeidasTouch's Sunday law and politics podcast, hosts MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok, first explore the House Judiciary's decision to open an investigation into the Former's misuse of subpoena power against the media, Apple, and Democratic leaders. Next up, the Legal AF analysts drill down on 3 new SCOTUS decisions: (1) 9-0, affecting LGBTQ+ foster parent rights, (2) 8-1, addressing child slavery lawsuits against Nestlé under the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 (ATS); and (3) a 7-2 decision crafted by Justice Breyer confirming the constitutionality of Obamacare once and for all. Speaking of Breyer, Ben and Michael give their views on the growing #RetireBreyer movement seeking to have him step down before the midterms to given Biden a guaranteed SCOTUS pick. Walrus-alert: Ben and Popok discuss the DOJ's decision to end both the criminal and civil cases against former National Security Advisor John Bolton for publishing a memoir which the Former did not like. Easter egg alert: Popok slips in a Hamilton: The Musical reference. Rounding out the podcast, the Analysis Friends discuss Biden's decision to protect transgender and gay students under Title IX from discrimination and retaliation in higher education in response to 20 states attempting to ban transgender students from competing in sport. And no #LAF pod would be complete without Ben and Popok discussing some gun-toting political candidate, in this case the white St. Louis Republican attorneys who brandished guns and AR-15s when peaceful #BLM protestors marched past their wealthy enclave, and the husband's decision to now run for the US Senate. Finally, and for added fun, Ben, perhaps listening too intently to a “supersonic dog siren,” forgets momentarily just which legal podcast he is actually hosting, prompting Popok to ask if Ben's law partner (and host of another legal podcast) is renting space in Ben's head. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On a “Baker's Dozen” Episode of LegalAF (#LAF), MeidasTouch's Sunday law and politics podcast, hosts MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok, first explore the House Judiciary's decision to open an investigation into the Former's misuse of subpoena power against the media, Apple, and Democratic leaders. Next up, the Legal AF analysts drill down on 3 new SCOTUS decisions: (1) 9-0, affecting LGBTQ+ foster parent rights, (2) 8-1, addressing child slavery lawsuits against Nestlé under the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 (ATS); and (3) a 7-2 decision crafted by Justice Breyer confirming the constitutionality of Obamacare once and for all. Speaking of Breyer, Ben and Michael give their views on the growing #RetireBreyer movement seeking to have him step down before the midterms to given Biden a guaranteed SCOTUS pick. Walrus-alert: Ben and Popok discuss the DOJ's decision to end both the criminal and civil cases against former National Security Advisor John Bolton for publishing a memoir which the Former did not like. Easter egg alert: Popok slips in a Hamilton: The Musical reference. Rounding out the podcast, the Analysis Friends discuss Biden's decision to protect transgender and gay students under Title IX from discrimination and retaliation in higher education in response to 20 states attempting to ban transgender students from competing in sport. And no #LAF pod would be complete without Ben and Popok discussing some gun-toting political candidate, in this case the white St. Louis Republican attorneys who brandished guns and AR-15s when peaceful #BLM protestors marched past their wealthy enclave, and the husband's decision to now run for the US Senate. Finally, and for added fun, Ben, perhaps listening too intently to a “supersonic dog siren,” forgets momentarily just which legal podcast he is actually hosting, prompting Popok to ask if Ben's law partner (and host of another legal podcast) is renting space in Ben's head. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/meidastouch/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/meidastouch/support

This episode references: Kleptopia: How Dirty Money is Conquering the World https://www.harpercollins.com/products/kleptopia-tom-burgis?variant=32121952829474 National Security Law Today “Politics of Putin: Why he's attacking NATO, the EU, and America's free and fair elections” September 3, 2020 https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_national_security/nslt/20200903-politics-of-putin-1/ Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Overview https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/foreign-corrupt-practices-act 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (Alien Tort Statute) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1350 2021 National Defense Authorization Act https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr6395/text Beneficial Ownership in the NDAA https://wp.nyu.edu/compliance_enforcement/2020/12/14/congress-to-include-significant-expansion-of-beneficial-ownership-disclosure-requirements-for-u-s-companies-and-non-u-s-companies-registered-to-do-business-in-the-united-states-as-a-part-of-the-2021/ “IRS: Sorry, but It’s Just Easier and Cheaper to Audit the Poor” ProPublica, October 2, 2019 https://www.propublica.org/article/irs-sorry-but-its-just-easier-and-cheaper-to-audit-the-poor Tom Burgis is an is an investigations correspondent at the Financial Times and an author https://www.harpercollins.com/blogs/authors/tom-burgis

On December 1 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Cargill v. Doe I. There were two legal questions before the Court. The first was whether the presumption against extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute is displaced by allegations that a U.S. company generally conducted oversight of its foreign operations at its headquarters and made operational and financial decisions there, even though the conduct alleged to violate international law occurred in – and the plaintiffs suffered their injuries in – a foreign country. The second question before the Court was whether a domestic corporation is subject to liability in a private action under the Alien Tort Statute.David Rybicki is Partner at K&L Gates LLP. He joins us today to discuss this case’s oral argument.

Podcast: Radiolab (LS 87 · TOP 0.01% what is this?)Episode: Enemy of MankindPub date: 2020-12-10Should the U.S. Supreme Court be the court of the world? In the 18th century, two feuding Frenchmen inspired a one-sentence law that helped launch American human rights litigation into the 20th century. The Alien Tort Statute allowed a Paraguayan woman to find justice for a terrible crime committed in her homeland. But as America reached further and further out into the world, the court was forced to confront the contradictions in our country's ideology: sympathy vs. sovereignty. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Jesner v. Arab Bank, a case that could reshape the way America responds to human rights abuses abroad. Does the A.T.S. secure human rights or is it a dangerous overreach? Additional music for this episode by Nicolas Carter. Special thanks to William J. Aceves, William Baude, Diego Calles, Alana Casanova-Burgess, William Dodge, Susan Farbstein, Jeffery Fisher, Joanne Freeman, Julian Ku, Nicholas Rosenkranz, Susan Simpson, Emily Vinson, Benjamin Wittes and Jamison York. Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., who appears in this episode, passed away in October 2016. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. Support Radiolab by becoming a member today at Radiolab.org/donate.    The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from WNYC Studios, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.

Should the U.S. Supreme Court be the court of the world? In the 18th century, two feuding Frenchmen inspired a one-sentence law that helped launch American human rights litigation into the 20th century. The Alien Tort Statute allowed a Paraguayan woman to find justice for a terrible crime committed in her homeland. But as America reached further and further out into the world, the court was forced to confront the contradictions in our country’s ideology: sympathy vs. sovereignty. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Jesner v. Arab Bank, a case that could reshape the way America responds to human rights abuses abroad. Does the A.T.S. secure human rights or is it a dangerous overreach? Additional music for this episode by Nicolas Carter. Special thanks to William J. Aceves, William Baude, Diego Calles, Alana Casanova-Burgess, William Dodge, Susan Farbstein, Jeffery Fisher, Joanne Freeman, Julian Ku, Nicholas Rosenkranz, Susan Simpson, Emily Vinson, Benjamin Wittes and Jamison York. Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., who appears in this episode, passed away in October 2016. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. Support Radiolab by becoming a member today at Radiolab.org/donate.    

The case of Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe I (consolidated with Cargill, Inc. v. Doe I) will have oral arguments before the Supreme Court on December 1, 2020. At issue is whether an aiding and abetting claim against a domestic corporation brought under the Alien Tort Statute may overcome the extraterritoriality bar where the claim is based on allegations of general corporate activity in the United States and where the plaintiffs cannot trace the alleged harms, which occurred abroad at the hands of unidentified foreign actors, to that activity. Also at issue is whether the judiciary has the authority under the Alien Tort Statute to impose liability on domestic corporations. David Rybicki joins us to discuss the case and the oral arguments at the Supreme Court.Featuring:-- David C. Rybicki, Partner, K&L Gates LLP

9-453 CARGILL, INC V. DOE I QUESTION PRESENTED: Petitioner Cargill, Incorporated, purchases cocoa beans grown in Cote d'Ivoire. Respondents are Malian citizens who allege that, when Respondents were under the age of fourteen, Ivorian cocoa farmers subjected them to forced labor and other abuses in violation of international law. Respondents filed this putative class action under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, claiming that Cargill aided and abetted the farmers' violations of international law by purchasing cocoa from and providing financial assistance to Ivorian cocoa farmers. 19-416 NESTLE USA V. DOE I QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Whether an aiding and abetting claim against a domestic corporation brought under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, may overcome the extraterritoriality bar where the claim is based on allegations of general corporate activity in the United States and where plaintiffs cannot trace the alleged harms, which occurred abroad at the hands of unidentified foreign actors, to that activity. 2. Whether the Judiciary has the authority under the Alien Tort Statute to impose liability on domestic corporations. SUPPORT what we are doing here by contributing to our Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/supremecourt

A case in which the Court will clarify the scope and reach of the Alien Tort Statute as to conduct by domestic corporations within the United States that may have caused harms abroad.

A case in which the Court will clarify the scope and reach of the Alien Tort Statute as to conduct by domestic corporations within the United States that may have caused harms abroad.

A case in which the Court will clarify the scope and reach of the Alien Tort Statute as to conduct by domestic corporations within the United States that may have caused harms abroad.

To mark the 25th year of the deaths of the Ogoni Nine - nine men who were executed by a brutal military regime in Nigeria in response to their activism against oil extraction in Ogoniland - IHRB presents a series of conversations about the significance of their struggle and impact of their leader Ken Saro Wiwa. In this episode - The View from Beyond - Salil Tripathi speaks with Nnimmo Bassey, Rafto Laureate, human rights defender, poet, and environmental activist; Bronwen Manby who co-authored The Price of Oil, Human Rights Watch's path-breaking research report on the violence in the Niger Delta; Paul Hoffman, who argued the Wiwa case before the US Supreme Court under the Alien Tort Statute; and Bennett Freeman, who was a senior US State Department official who brought together oil and mining companies, governments, and international human rights groups to prepare the Voluntary Principles for Security and Human Rights. They discuss how the Ogoni struggle in Nigeria shaped the modern business and human rights movement; the litigations that followed; the lack of political and corporate accountability in an oil-rich nation where the military was a major factor, and; the state of human rights.

In this episode, Jacqueline Lainez Flanagan, Visiting Associate Professor of Law at American University Washington College of Law's Janet R. Spragens Federal Tax Clinic (Associate Professor of Law, University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law), discusses her article "Holding U.S. Corporations Accountable: Toward a Convergence of U.S. International Tax Policy and International Human Rights" published in the Pepperdine Law Review. Lainez Flanagan begins by discussing the right of foreign nationals to seek redress for violations of international law norms in U.S. courts as originally set out in the Alien Tort Statute and recent Supreme Court jurisprudence increasing U.S. parent companies' protection from accountability for wrongs committed by subsidiaries. She argues toward a convergence of American international tax policy and international human rights, outlining the vast tax benefits conferred upon U.S. parents through legislative grace, most notably the formation of foreign subsidiaries to hold profits offshore. She recommends using international tax policy to enhance the accountability of corporations, discussing existing tools and frameworks within the tax code that allow for its use in promoting human rights norms. She concludes by entreating care in foreign direct investment and the importance of respecting the rights of indigenous populations, natural resources, and native workers in foreign lands, noting that legislators, policymakers, and human rights advocates have opportunities to construct a viable tax justice framework from the existing schema embedded within the tax code.This episode was hosted by Luce Nguyen, a college student and the co-founder of the Oberlin Policy Research Institute, an undergraduate public policy research organization based at Oberlin College. Nguyen is on Twitter at @NguyenLuce. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, a case considering whether corporations may be sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).Between 2004 and 2010, survivors of several terrorist attacks in the Middle East (or family members or estate representatives of the victims) filed lawsuits in federal district court in New York against Arab Bank, PLC, an international bank headquartered in Jordan. Plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank had financed and facilitated the attacks in question, and they sought redress under, among other laws, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The district court ultimately dismissed those ATS claims based on the 2010 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (“Kiobel I”) which concluded that ATS claims could not be brought against corporations, because the law of nations did not recognize corporate liability. The U.S. Supreme Court later affirmed the judgment in Kiobel (“Kiobel II”) but on a different basis: the presumption against extraterritorial application of statutes. In Jesner, the Second Circuit, invoking its precedent in Kiobel I--and finding nothing to the contrary in the Supreme Court’s Kiobel II decision--affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ ATS claims on the grounds that the ATS does not apply to alleged international law violations by a corporation. This sharpened a split among the circuit courts of appeals on the issue, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the dispute.By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Second Circuit. In an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that foreign corporations may not be defendants in suits brought under the Alien Tort Statute. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-B-I, and II-C, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch--and an opinion with respect to Parts II-A, II-B-2, II-B-3, and III, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justices Alito and Gorsuch also filed opinions concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. To discuss the case, we have Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of Law at Northwestern School of Law.

On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, a case considering whether corporations may be sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).Between 2004 and 2010, survivors of several terrorist attacks in the Middle East (or family members or estate representatives of the victims) filed lawsuits in federal district court in New York against Arab Bank, PLC, an international bank headquartered in Jordan. Plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank had financed and facilitated the attacks in question, and they sought redress under, among other laws, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The district court ultimately dismissed those ATS claims based on the 2010 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (“Kiobel I”) which concluded that ATS claims could not be brought against corporations, because the law of nations did not recognize corporate liability. The U.S. Supreme Court later affirmed the judgment in Kiobel (“Kiobel II”) but on a different basis: the presumption against extraterritorial application of statutes. In Jesner, the Second Circuit, invoking its precedent in Kiobel I--and finding nothing to the contrary in the Supreme Court’s Kiobel II decision--affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ ATS claims on the grounds that the ATS does not apply to alleged international law violations by a corporation. This sharpened a split among the circuit courts of appeals on the issue, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the dispute.By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Second Circuit. In an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that foreign corporations may not be defendants in suits brought under the Alien Tort Statute. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-B-I, and II-C, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch--and an opinion with respect to Parts II-A, II-B-2, II-B-3, and III, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justices Alito and Gorsuch also filed opinions concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. To discuss the case, we have Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of Law at Northwestern School of Law.

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Stephen Vladeck, co-host of the popular podcast “The National Security Law Podcast”, as well as a law professor at the University of Texas, School of Law. Stephen is also a consultant for CNN both on air and behind the scenes, as an analyst covering the Supreme Court.   Specializing in national security law, Stephen focuses his research on the intersection of the federal courts and national security law, access to justice, human rights law and more. In today’s episode, Aaron and Stephen discuss the Supreme Court case, Jesner Et Al. v. Arab Bank, PLC.   A matter with potentially wide-ranging implications, this case surrounds a series of five lawsuits that were filed against the Arab Bank in Federal District Court in Brooklyn between the years 2004 and 2010. The basic allegation uniting these five lawsuits and more than 6,000 plaintiffs is their claim as victims of terrorist attacks that happened overseas that they allege the Arab Bank was liable for. They claim that the Arab Bank was directly and indirectly responsible for financing and helping to facilitate a series of terrorist attacks in the Middle East over a ten year period that produced and resulted in the deaths and serious injuries of many of the plaintiffs and or their families.   Throughout the conversation, Aaron and Stephen discuss the ins and outs of the case, as well as the theoretical ramifications that could happen as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision.  Technically a private entity, the Arab Bank is a major financial institution with many branches and a wide global reach.   Join us today as Stephen Vladeck and Aaron Freiwald discuss this fascinating Supreme Court case and discuss the potential outcomes this case could have. Attached are the original complaint, as well as the opinion by Justice Kennedy, and the concurring opinions by Justices Alito and Gorsuch. The dissenting opinion by Justice Sotomayor is also included. The holding of the court was that foreign corporations may not be defendants in suits brought under the Alien Tort Statute. The judgment was affirmed in a 5-4 decision on April 24th. Complaint & Opinions: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Stephen Vladeck   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.GoodLawBadLawPodcast.com

This week's episode covers the Alien Tort Statute and the current case of Jesner v. Arab Bank, which covers whether a corporations can be liable under said Alien Tort Statute.  Brett and Nazim also relish their Web 100 nomination by the ABA and discuss the appropriate amount of relishing one should do when reading about attorneys getting disciplined.  Law starts at (05:50).

On October 11, 2017, the Supreme Court heard argument in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, a case regarding the validity of suits against corporate entities under the Alien Tort Statute. Between 2004 and 2010, survivors of several terrorist attacks in the Middle East (or family members or estate representatives of the victims) filed lawsuits in federal district court in New York against Arab Bank, PLC, an international bank headquartered in Jordan. Plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank had financed and facilitated the attacks in question, and they sought redress under, among other laws, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The district court ultimately dismissed those ATS claims based on the 2010 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., (“Kiobel I”), which concluded that ATS claims could not be brought against corporations, because the law of nations did not recognize corporate liability. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s judgment in Kiobel (“Kiobel II”) but for a different reason: the failure to rebut a presumption against extraterritorial application of the ATS to actions that took place in the territory of a sovereign other than the United States. The district court in Jesner acknowledged this, but concluded that nothing in the Supreme Court’s decision actually contravened the Second Circuit’s original rationale regarding corporate liability, which therefore remained the law applicable to district courts within the Second Circuit. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court, agreeing that Kiobel II did not overrule Kiobel I on the issue of corporate liability under the ATS. Other federal circuit courts of appeals, however, have read Kiobel II differently with respect to the possibility of corporate liability, creating a split with the Second Circuit--and the Supreme Court has now granted certiorari to address whether the Alien Tort Statute categorically forecloses corporate liability.To discuss the case, we have Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of Law at Northwestern School of Law.

On October 11, 2017, the Supreme Court heard argument in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, a case regarding the validity of suits against corporate entities under the Alien Tort Statute. Between 2004 and 2010, survivors of several terrorist attacks in the Middle East (or family members or estate representatives of the victims) filed lawsuits in federal district court in New York against Arab Bank, PLC, an international bank headquartered in Jordan. Plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank had financed and facilitated the attacks in question, and they sought redress under, among other laws, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The district court ultimately dismissed those ATS claims based on the 2010 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., (“Kiobel I”), which concluded that ATS claims could not be brought against corporations, because the law of nations did not recognize corporate liability. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s judgment in Kiobel (“Kiobel II”) but for a different reason: the failure to rebut a presumption against extraterritorial application of the ATS to actions that took place in the territory of a sovereign other than the United States. The district court in Jesner acknowledged this, but concluded that nothing in the Supreme Court’s decision actually contravened the Second Circuit’s original rationale regarding corporate liability, which therefore remained the law applicable to district courts within the Second Circuit. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court, agreeing that Kiobel II did not overrule Kiobel I on the issue of corporate liability under the ATS. Other federal circuit courts of appeals, however, have read Kiobel II differently with respect to the possibility of corporate liability, creating a split with the Second Circuit--and the Supreme Court has now granted certiorari to address whether the Alien Tort Statute categorically forecloses corporate liability.To discuss the case, we have Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of Law at Northwestern School of Law.

Oral Arguments for Jesner v. Arab Bank were heard on Wednesday, October 11th 2017. The issue at the center of the case is whether the Alien Tort Statute exempts corporations from liability.The petitioners are surviving victims or families affected by a series of terrorist attacks that occurred over a 10-year period along the Gaza Strip and West Bank of Israel. Arab Bank knowingly accepted donations, paid suicide bombers' families, and maintained accounts for the terrorists who committed these acts. Arab Bank holds a small division in the United States, which it uses for money transfers. Petitioners claim that since Arab Bank has connection to the United States they can sue the corporation for damages in U.S. federal court under the 1789 Alien Tort Act.Prof. Samuel Estreicher and Prof. William Casto will join us to discuss the oral argument and the significance of the case.Featuring:Prof. William R. Casto, Paul Whitfield Horn Professor, Texas Tech University School of LawProf. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law Director, Center for Labor and Employment Law Co-Director, Institute of Judicial Administration, New York University School of Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Oral Arguments for Jesner v. Arab Bank were heard on Wednesday, October 11th 2017. The issue at the center of the case is whether the Alien Tort Statute exempts corporations from liability.The petitioners are surviving victims or families affected by a series of terrorist attacks that occurred over a 10-year period along the Gaza Strip and West Bank of Israel. Arab Bank knowingly accepted donations, paid suicide bombers' families, and maintained accounts for the terrorists who committed these acts. Arab Bank holds a small division in the United States, which it uses for money transfers. Petitioners claim that since Arab Bank has connection to the United States they can sue the corporation for damages in U.S. federal court under the 1789 Alien Tort Act.Prof. Samuel Estreicher and Prof. William Casto will join us to discuss the oral argument and the significance of the case.Featuring:Prof. William R. Casto, Paul Whitfield Horn Professor, Texas Tech University School of LawProf. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law Director, Center for Labor and Employment Law Co-Director, Institute of Judicial Administration, New York University School of Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Should the U.S. Supreme Court be the court of the world? In the 18th century, two feuding Frenchmen inspired a one-sentence law that helped launch American human rights litigation into the 20th century. The Alien Tort Statute allowed a Paraguayan woman to find justice for a terrible crime committed in her homeland. But as America reached further and further out into the world, the court was forced to confront the contradictions in our country’s ideology: sympathy vs. sovereignty. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Jesner v. Arab Bank, a case that could reshape the way America responds to human rights abuses abroad. Does the A.T.S. secure human rights or is it a dangerous overreach? The key voices: Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., son of activist Ken Saro-Wiwa Sr. Dolly Filártiga, sister of Joelito Filártiga Paloma Calles, daughter of Dolly Filártiga Peter Weiss, lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights who represented Dolly Filártiga in Filártiga v. Peña-Irala Katherine Gallagher, lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights Paul Hoffman, lawyer who represented Kiobel in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum John Bellinger, former legal adviser for the U.S. Department of State and the National Security Council William Casto, professor at Texas Tech University School of Law Eric Posner, professor at University of Chicago Law School Samuel Moyn, professor at Yale University René Horst, professor at Appalachian State University The key cases: 1984: Filártiga v. Peña-Irala 2013: Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum 2017: Jesner v. Arab Bank The key links: Center for Constitutional Rights Additional music for this episode by Nicolas Carter. Special thanks to William J. Aceves, William Baude, Diego Calles, Alana Casanova-Burgess, William Dodge, Susan Farbstein, Jeffery Fisher, Joanne Freeman, Julian Ku, Nicholas Rosenkranz, Susan Simpson, Emily Vinson, Benjamin Wittes and Jamison York. Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., who appears in this episode, passed away in October 2016. Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

A case that is pending before the Supreme Court of the United States could have profound implications for human rights and corporate social responsibility around the world. The case is called Jesner vs. Arab Bank. It is a lawsuit in which The plaintiffs allege that Arab Bank, which is a Jordanian financial institution, facilitated payments to terrorist groups that carried out attacks in Israel, killing and injuring them.    Now a case involving foreign victims of a terrorist attack carried out on foreign soil by a foreign group would typically not be the business of the US legal system. But the plaintiffs in this case are pursing damages using a law that has been on the books since the 18th century, called the Alien Tort Statute. And according to my guest today, Dr. Zachary Kauffman, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Plaintiffs this statute could influence corporate decision making and even US foreign policy.    Zachary Kauffman is a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and teaching at Stanford Law school -- he is also, like me, a humanity in action senior fellow.    Become a premium subscriber to unlock bonus episodes, earn other rewards, and support the show!  

Argued 10/11/2017. Description from Oyez.org: "A case in which the Court will decide whether the Alien Tort Statute prohibits corporate liability."

October 2nd will mark the first day of oral arguments for the 2017 Supreme Court term. The Court's docket already includes major cases involving Federal Courts, redistricting, the First Amendment, election law, business law, class actions, international and immigration issues, Alien Tort Statute, and the Fourth Amendment. -- The full list of cases granted thus far for the upcoming term can be viewed on SCOTUSblog here. The panelists will also discuss the current composition and the future of the Court. -- Featuring: Kyle Duncan, Schaerr Duncan, LLP; Prof. Samuel Estreicher, New York University School of Law; Prof. Orin Kerr, George Washington University Law School; Andrew Pincus, Mayer Brown, LLP; and Carrie Severino, Judicial Crisis Network. Moderator: Jan Crawford, CBS News.

October 2nd will mark the first day of oral arguments for the 2017 Supreme Court term. The Court's docket already includes major cases involving Federal Courts, redistricting, the First Amendment, election law, business law, class actions, international and immigration issues, Alien Tort Statute, and the Fourth Amendment. -- The full list of cases granted thus far for the upcoming term can be viewed on SCOTUSblog here. The panelists will also discuss the current composition and the future of the Court. -- Featuring: Kyle Duncan, Schaerr Duncan, LLP; Prof. Samuel Estreicher, New York University School of Law; Prof. Orin Kerr, George Washington University Law School; Andrew Pincus, Mayer Brown, LLP; and Carrie Severino, Judicial Crisis Network. Moderator: Jan Crawford, CBS News.

More than any other lawyer in the country, Paul Hoffman is responsible for turning an obscure 1789 law called the Alien Tort Statute into a potent weapon. Under the ATS, Hoffman has, on behalf of the tortured, successfully sued foreign nationals, as well as corporations, in U.S. federal courts for acts committed abroad. In March 2013, UC Hastings law professor Naomi Roht-Arriaza interviewed Hoffman in San Francisco. Series: "Legally Speaking" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 25196]

More than any other lawyer in the country, Paul Hoffman is responsible for turning an obscure 1789 law called the Alien Tort Statute into a potent weapon. Under the ATS, Hoffman has, on behalf of the tortured, successfully sued foreign nationals, as well as corporations, in U.S. federal courts for acts committed abroad. In March 2013, UC Hastings law professor Naomi Roht-Arriaza interviewed Hoffman in San Francisco. Series: "Legally Speaking" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 25196]

More than any other lawyer in the country, Paul Hoffman is responsible for turning an obscure 1789 law called the Alien Tort Statute into a potent weapon. Under the ATS, Hoffman has, on behalf of the tortured, successfully sued foreign nationals, as well as corporations, in U.S. federal courts for acts committed abroad. In March 2013, UC Hastings law professor Naomi Roht-Arriaza interviewed Hoffman in San Francisco. Series: "Legally Speaking" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 25196]

More than any other lawyer in the country, Paul Hoffman is responsible for turning an obscure 1789 law called the Alien Tort Statute into a potent weapon. Under the ATS, Hoffman has, on behalf of the tortured, successfully sued foreign nationals, as well as corporations, in U.S. federal courts for acts committed abroad. In March 2013, UC Hastings law professor Naomi Roht-Arriaza interviewed Hoffman in San Francisco. Series: "Legally Speaking" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 25196]

A case in which the Court found that the Alien Tort Statute does not give ground for United States law to be applied extraterrestrially to other sovereign nations with their own laws.

A case in which the Court found that the Alien Tort Statute does not give ground for United States law to be applied extraterrestrially to other sovereign nations with their own laws.