U.S. high court allows apartheid claims against multinationals

Lacking the necessary quorum, the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling that multi-national companies can be sued in U.S. courts for allegedly aiding and abetting the former apartheid government in South Africa.

Four judges recused themselves because of potential conflict, leaving only a five-justice court to consider whether to take up the suit.

The plaintiffs are South African residents who suffered under apartheid between the years of 1948-1994. They seek damages from the U.S. corporations and not from the South African government. The Alien Tort Statute allows individuals to sue in American courts for certain violations of international law.

The core allegation is that the corporations actively and willingly collaborated with the South African government to perpetuate the repressive, race-based system of apartheid.

The corporations and the Bush Justice Department argued in their briefs that the case interferes with US foreign policy and places judges in the role of world legislators deciding which international human rights violations to punish.

The plaintiff’s lawyers argue that failure to recognize any theory of aiding and abetting liability under the statute would grant those complicit in the most egregious human rights crimes an unwarranted immunity.

Bank of America, Barclay’s Bank, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, BP, ChevronTexaco, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, Daimler, and Deutsche Bank, are some of the more well known defendants in the case.

The US Supreme Court has affirmed a lower court ruling that multinational companies can be sued in a US court for allegedly aiding and abetting the former apartheid government in South Africa.

The high court announced Monday that it could not hear a case involving 11 consolidated lawsuits against more than 50 international corporations. Four justices recused themselves from consideration of the case apparently due to potential conflict, leaving only a five-justice court to consider whether to take up the suit.

In a brief order, the court said it lacked the necessary quorum. “Since a majority of the qualified justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined in the next term of the court, the judgment [of the lower court] is affirmed,” the unsigned order says.

Posted by shades
I am a 61-year-old portrait artist (charcoal&pastel) residing in Milwaukee. In my other life, I spent 4 years as a Security Policeman in the Air force. Upon discharge my first act was joining every peace group I could find, including Vietnam Vets Against the...