In a September 2010 ruling in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., the Second Circuit became the first and only appellate court to reject the proposition that corporations may be held liable for torts in violation of international law under the ATS. Subsequent decisions by the D.C. Circuit in Doe v. Exxon and the Seventh Circuit in Flomo v. Firestone explicitly rejected the Second Circuit’s reasoning. In October 2010, counsel for the plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing. The Clinic submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of the petition on behalf of professors of legal history. The brief argues that the history and purpose of the ATS support what the text explicitly provides: that jurisdiction extends to all causes in which an alien sues for a tort in violation of the law of nations, including cases against corporate defendants. The plaintiffs filed a second petition for rehearing in February 2011 after the first petition for rehearing was denied. Following the denial of the second petition for rehearing, the plaintiffs filed petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2011. The Clinic filed an amicus brief on behalf of professors of legal history in support of that petition.
The Kiobel case was filed by Nigerian plaintiffs and brings claims for extrajudicial killing, torture, crimes against humanity, and prolonged arbitrary arrest and detention. The plaintiffs allege that the company collaborated with the Nigerian government to commit these violations to suppress their lawful protests against oil exploration.
The petition for certiorari was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court on October 17, 2011. Oral argument took place on February 28, 2012.
Legal Documents
U.S. Supreme Court
Amicus Briefs in Support of Petitioners to the U.S. Supreme Court on Behalf of:
Former US Government Counterterrorism and Human Rights Officials
Law Professors of Civil Liberties and 42 USC Section 1983
International Human Rights Organizations and International Law Experts
Nuremberg Historians and International Lawyers
Dr. Juan Romagoza Arce, Cecilia Santos Moran, Ken Wiwa
Former US Senator Arlen Specter, Human Rights First, and the Anti-Defamanation League
Prof. Juan Mendez, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture
Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU
Yale Law School Center for Global Legal Challenges
Respondents’ Amicus Briefs:
Professors of International Law
Law Professors of Constitutional and Federal Civil Procedure Law
National Foreign Trade Council, et al
Product Liability Advisory Council
Association of German Chambers of Industry and Commerce, et al
The Clearing House Association
The Federal Republic of Germany
The Governments of the United Kingdom and The Netherlands
Rio Tinto Group and Occidental Petro Corp
Briefs in Support of Neither Party:
Nuremberg Historians and International Lawyers
Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court:
Petitioners Reply to Opposition Brief
Amicus Brief of International Law Scholars
Amicus Brief of International Human Rights NGOs
Amicus Brief of Professors of Legal History
Amicus Brief of David J. Scheffer
Petitions for Rehearing En Banc in the Second Circuit:
Opposition to Petition for Rehearing
Amicus Briefs in Support of Petition for Rehearing En Banc on Behalf of:
Human Rights and Labor Organizations
Pingback: This Just In: Kiobel Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied | HRP Blog
Pingback: Child Labor in Liberia: Clinic Files Amicus Curiae Brief In Firestone Case | HRP Blog
Pingback: Kiobel: Second Petition for Rehearing En Banc Filed | IHRC Blog
Pingback: Tomorrow, March 8: “The Future of Corporate Alien Tort Statute Litigation” | IHRC Blog
Pingback: Clinic Files Amicus Curiae Brief with U.S. Supreme Court | International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School
Pingback: Breaking News: Settlement in Abdullahi v. Pfizer | International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School
Pingback: Kiobel Plaintiffs File Petition for Certiorari | International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School
Pingback: Supreme Court Grants Cert in Kiobel, Deciding to Hear Corporate ATS Case | International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School
Pingback: Kiobel Ignores History in Creating a Corporate Carve-Out | International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School
Pingback: Clinic Files Amicus Curiae Brief with U.S. Supreme Court on Behalf of Legal Historians | International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School
Pingback: No Corporate Exemption: Supreme Court to Hear Major Corporate Human Rights Case | International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School
Pingback: Update from the Steps of the U.S. Supreme Court | International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School
Pingback: Student Voices: Camping Out for Kiobel | The Latest from HLS … | The Washington DC Night