A Primer on Human Rights Litigation
Modern human rights law developed in response to the events of the World War II, although it has earlier precursors. In 1948, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a non-binding declaration. More than seventy human rights treaties followed, including the Genocide Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,…
Continue ReadingThe ATS Clarification Act Can Protect Human Rights and Level the Playing Field for U.S. Businesses
As previously reported on TLB, Senators Durbin (D-IL) and Brown (D-OH) recently introduced the Alien Tort Statute Clarification Act (ATSCA), which, if passed, will clarify the extraterritorial reach of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and expand the statute’s jurisdiction to cover all defendants “present in” the United States. The ATS is one of our nation’s…
Continue ReadingKashef v. BNP Paribas SA Overcomes the Forum Non Conveniens Hurdle
In Kashef v. BNP Paribas SA, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein in the Southern District of New York recently denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. The order allows plaintiffs to continue to pursue their claims against BNP Paribas S.A. and its U.S.-based subsidiary and New York branch (“BNPP”) for their role in…
Continue ReadingDoe v. Meta and the Future of the Communications Decency Act
Two law firms recently filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Rohingya refugees in the United States seeking at least $150 billion in compensatory damages from Meta (formerly Facebook). The plaintiffs in Doe v. Meta allege that Meta’s algorithms were designed to promote hate speech and misinformation about the Rohingya, a Muslim-minority population in Myanmar…
Continue ReadingCourt Holds that ATS Claims for Medical Experimentation Are Not Impermissibly Extraterritorial
In a recent decision, Estate of Alvarez v. The Johns Hopkins University, a federal district court held that claims under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) based on nonconsensual medical experiments in Guatemala were not impermissibly extraterritorial. Although the district court ultimately granted summary judgment for the defendants on other grounds, the decision is significant because…
Continue ReadingNew Bill Would Amend the Alien Tort Statute to Apply Extraterritorially
Last week, Senators Dick Durbin and Sherrod Brown introduced a new bill, the Alien Tort Statute Clarification Act (ATSCA), that would amend the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) to apply extraterritorially. Since 1980, plaintiffs have relied on the ATS to bring international human rights claims in federal court against individuals and corporations. But since 2013, the…
Continue ReadingCan Defendants Be Sued at Home? Forum Non Conveniens, Expendable Lives, and the Legacy of Gore v. U.S. Steel Corp.
Many were shocked last month when court documents revealed that Johnson & Johnson tested the safety of its talc powder in the 1960s by injecting asbestos into mostly Black inmates at Philadelphia’s Holmesburg prison. The use of Holmesburg inmates for medical studies was already well-documented, echoing the U.S. Government’s syphilis studies in hundreds of Black…
Continue ReadingCustomary International Law’s Domestic Status: Reflections After Twenty-Five Years
We are grateful to Bill Dodge for highlighting our 1997 article on the domestic legal status of customary international law. In that article, we critically analyzed what we referred to as the “modern position,” which is the claim made by some academics and the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law that customary international law has…
Continue ReadingThrowback Thursday: Revisiting Bradley and Goldsmith’s “Critique of the Modern Position”
Twenty-five years ago, Professors Curtis Bradley and Jack Goldsmith shook the fields of transnational litigation, federal courts, and foreign relations law by questioning the conventional wisdom that customary international law has the status of federal common law. Their article Customary International Law as Federal Common Law: A Critique of the Modern Position, published in the…
Continue ReadingForeign Dictators in U.S. Courts
From Augusto Pinochet to Jiang Zemin and Ferdinand Marcos, foreign dictators have for decades faced a range of claims in U.S. courts. But there is also a line of cases in U.S. courts involving dictators as plaintiffs. Over the last decade, authoritarian governments from China, Russia, Turkey, and Venezuela have used the U.S. judicial system to file frivolous claims against political opponents. And these claims appear to be mainly a harassment technique against dissidents and media outlets based in the United States.
Continue Reading