The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case on July 27, 2015. Plaintiffs petitioned for rehearing en banc on August 10, 2015, which the court denied on September 14, 2015.
The Center for Constitutional Rights filed amicus briefs in 2005, 2009, and 2015 in this consolidated case seeking civil liability from multinational corporations that are alleged to have aided and abetted the South African apartheid regime. The 2005 amicus brief, filed on behalf of public interest and religious organizations, addresses why apartheid must be found to constitute a violation of customary international law. The 2009 brief, filed on behalf of international and national human rights organizations, focuses primarily on the requirement under international law to ensure victims have access to a remedy and argues that the case should not be dismissed under the political question doctrine. The 2015 amicus brief that CCR joined with other human rights and labor organizations argues that the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Kiobel affirmed that corporations can be sued for human rights violations under the Alien Tort Statute, and that the claims in the case are governed by federal common law, which allows for corporate liability. CCR filed or joined these briefs as part of its efforts to strengthen mechanisms in U.S. courts for accountability for corporate human rights violations.
After years of litigation, the remaining claims are against two U.S. corporations, Ford Motor Company (Ford) and International Business Machines Corporation (IBM). Plaintiffs allege that these corporations provided substantial, purposeful assistance to the apartheid regime by supplying it with products and services to advance the commission of violations including apartheid, denationalization, torture, and extrajudicial killing.
These lawsuits were brought under the Alien Tort Statute, which allows foreign nationals to sue for egregious human rights violations in U.S. courts. CCR pioneered the Alien Tort Statute as a tool to pursue international human rights violations in U.S. courts and has used it for decades to seek justice and accountability for human rights victims across the globe.
Plaintiffs argue that en banc review is necessary on three grounds: 1) the opinion conflicts with the Supreme Court's decision in Kiobel; 2) the opinion has adopted a mens rea standard of purpose that is “specific intent,” which transforms aiding and abetting into joint criminal enterprise and also is in conflict with international jurisprudence that establishes the mens rea standard as knowledge; and 3) there is a conflict in the Circuit about whether corporate liability exists under the ATS.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirms district court dismissal
July 27, 2015
Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirms district court dismissal
Judges Cabranes, Hall, and Livingston order that plaintiffs have not demonstrated that relevant conduct occurred in the U.S. to an extent sufficient to rebut the Alien Tort Statute's presumption against extraterritoriality. They also order that plaintiffs did not provide evidence that IBM purposely facilitated apartheid, failing to satisfy claims of aiding and abetting.
Oral argument is heard in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals before Judges Cabranes, Hall, and Livingston.
February 4, 2015
CCR joins amicus brief on behalf of human rights and labor organizations
February 4, 2015
CCR joins amicus brief on behalf of human rights and labor organizations
CCR joins an amicus brief filed in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kiobel permits suits against corporations for violations under the Alien Tort Statute and that the claims are governed by federal common law, which allows for corporate liability.
CCR joins amicus brief on behalf of human rights and labor organizations
February 4, 2015
CCR joins amicus brief on behalf of human rights and labor organizations
CCR joins an amicus brief filed in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kiobel permits suits against corporations for violations under the Alien Tort Statute and that the claims are governed by federal common law, which allows for corporate liability.
On December 26, 2013, Judge Scheindlin orders briefing on corporate liability under the ATS. Plaintiffs submit their brief on January 24, 2014; defendants submit their opposition on February 14, 2014; and plaintiffs submit their reply on February 28, 2014.
Second Circuit orders case be remanded to district court
August 21, 2013
Second Circuit orders case be remanded to district court
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacates the district court’s stay on the case and orders that the case be remanded to the district court with instruction to consider the claims in light of Kiobel.
The case is argued in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
November - December 2009
CCR files second amicus brief
November - December 2009
CCR files second amicus brief
On November 30, 2009, CCR files an amicus brief in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that the political question doctrine is not applicable, that fundamental principles of international law provide a right to a remedy for grave human rights violations, and that international comity should not prevent the plaintiffs’ claims from being addressed. On December 21, 2009, in response to a December 4, 2009 order requesting supplemental briefing, civil procedure professors file an amicus brief.
CCR files an amicus brief on behalf of public interest and religious organizations that addresses why apartheid must be found to constitute a violation of customary international law.
South African plaintiffs file initial complaints; cases are consolidated
2002
South African plaintiffs file initial complaints; cases are consolidated
Plaintiffs file three cases in 2002 in the Southern District of New York and the District of New Jersey. On December 16, 2002, a panel of judges grants the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate and transfer the cases to the Southern District of New York.
