Throwback Thursday: Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain
On June 29, 2004, two decades ago, the Supreme Court decided Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, recognizing an implied cause of action under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) for violations of human rights norms that are generally accepted and specifically defined. In this post, I look back at Sosa and discuss what has happened in ATS litigation during…
Continue ReadingThrowback Thursday: Empagran’s Complicated Legacy
Twenty years ago tomorrow, on June 14, 2004, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Stephen Breyer, interpreted the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 (FTAIA) to preclude the application of U.S. antitrust law to injuries in other countries. Empagran…
Continue ReadingThrowback Thursday: Eighty Years of Ex Parte Republic of Peru
Back in 1943, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in an admiralty case against the Ucayali, a Peruvian steamship. A Cuban company brought the in rem action in a federal district court in Louisiana alleging that the steamship violated a charter agreement by failing to carry a cargo of sugar from Peru to New York….
Continue ReadingThrowback Thursday: Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites
In the Supreme Court’s end-of-Term personal jurisdiction case, Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway (2023) (prior coverage here, here, and here), Justice Jackson wrote separately to explain why she found “particularly instructive” the Court’s prior decision in Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites (1982). Bauxites, a case about jurisdictional discovery and discovery sanctions, is…
Continue ReadingThrowback Thursday: Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California
Thirty years ago next week, the Supreme Court addressed the extraterritorial reach of U.S. antitrust laws in Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California. The Court reiterated that the Sherman Act applies to anticompetitive conduct abroad that causes substantial intended effects in the United States, but it divided sharply over the role of “international comity.” Writing…
Continue ReadingThrowback Thursday: Federal Rule 44.1
For this installment of Throwback Thursday, we are going back to the year 1966. In that year, the Supreme Court adopted important changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing class actions, amendments that have garnered substantial commentary ever since. This post addresses a less-heralded change, the introduction of Federal Rule 44.1 governing foreign…
Continue ReadingThrowback Thursday: Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
Ten years ago this week, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., applying the presumption against extraterritoriality to the implied cause of action for human rights violations under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). In Kiobel, the Court began to whittle down the cause of action it had…
Continue ReadingThrowback Thursday: Professor William Casto on the Origins of the Alien Tort Statute
In the spring of 1986, Professor William Casto published an article in the Connecticut Law Review entitled The Federal Courts’ Protective Jurisdiction Over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations. Casto’s article was the first to explore the origins of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) in detail, and despite the many law reviewpages…
Continue ReadingThrowback Thursday: Forty Years of the Bancec Test
The Supreme Court’s 1983 decision in First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba was saddled with a cumbersome mouthful of a title, one confusingly similar to a 1972 opinion in another important case, First National City Bank v. Banco Nacional de Cuba. Fortunately, the 1983 decision was quickly dubbed Bancec, an…
Continue ReadingThrowback Thursday: Blackmun’s Prescient Dissent in Aérospatiale
In Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. U.S. District Court (1987), the Supreme Court held that U.S. courts need not treat the procedures set forth in the Hague Evidence Convention as the exclusive or even the primary means for managing discovery of evidence located abroad. Four justices dissented in part in a remarkably prescient opinion authored…
Continue Reading