Latest in Alien Tort Statute: Litigation
Six months after the Supreme Court ruling in Jesner v. Arab Bank, how has the decision affected lower courts' interpretation of the Alien Tort Statute?
A proposal for an FCPA-inspired means to hold corporations liable for human rights violations.
All you need to know from the majority, plurality, concurring, and dissenting opinions in the landmark Alien Tort Statute case.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued the following opinion in Jesner v. Arab Bank, which held that foreign corporations cannot be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute.
//-->The recent ruling by the Eastern District of Virginia in Al Shimari, et. al. v. CACI highlights the need for further guidance from the Supreme Court—or even better, Congress—regarding the scope and nature of the Alien Tort Statute.
Justice Gorsuch was right about the original meaning of the ATS.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court denied Mohammed Jawad’s petition for certiorari.
A review of recent updates in the case of Mohammed Jawad, a former Guantanamo detainee who is suing the government over his alleged torture.
The long-running Alien Tort Statute suit against Nestle, Archer Daniels Midland, and Cargill for allegedly aiding and abetting child slave labor in the Cote d’Ivoire—Doe v Nestle—has once again been dismissed.
Last month, the Fifth Circuit issued a split opinion in Adhikari v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., representing the first ATS case to be decided post-RJR Nabisco. The opinion, issued over a vigorous dissent, suggests that it may be premature to say that RJR Nabisco resolves the circuit split over the interpretation of “touch and concern.”