AIDING & ABETTING? The U.S. Supreme Court allowed three class-action lawsuits to proceed Monday after four of the justices recused themselves for conflicts of interest. The lawsuits target American and multinational companies for their alleged role in supporting apartheid.

The South African plaintiffs were in some way victims of their government’s policy of apartheid. The lawyers representing them claim that the American companies named in the lawsuits supported apartheid and discriminated against South Africa’s non-white populations.

Not Enough Justices

Judges must recuse themselves—not participate in a case—when their objectivity may come into question or if there is a conflict of interests. The apartheid cases created an unusual situation for the Supreme Court: Four of the nine justices had to recuse themselves.

• Justices Roberts, Alito and Bryer own stocks in some of the companies named in the suits.
• Justice Kennedy’s son works for one of the companies.

It’s rare for so many justices to recuse themselves all at once. The Supreme Court must have at least six justices available to decide a case. Because only five were left, the court could not render a decision on the apartheid cases.

Because of this, an earlier appeals court decision still stands: The South African plaintiffs have legal standing to sue the American companies.

How Can South Africans Sue American Companies?

A law dating back to the 1700s allows citizens of other countries to seek legal action against American businesses or individuals for violations of international law.

The Alien Tort Claims Act was originally written to deal with crimes such as piracy. Although some modern legal experts argue the old law no longer applies, several foreign plaintiffs have filed suits in recent years. Remember when Chinese political dissidents sued Yahoo for releasing their personal information to the Chinese government? That case settled out of court.

The Bush administration opposes the use of the Alien Tort Claims Act as a way to resolve violations of international law. From the administration’s perspective, it places U.S. judges in the position of deciding cases that should be decided in international courts. It also interferes with U.S. foreign policy.

Victims of Apartheid v. Multinational Companies

The South African plaintiffs claim that U.S. and other international companies made things worse for those who suffered under apartheid. “We want a legal acknowledgement of accountability, that these international corporations knowingly helped the regime violate human rights,” said Michael Hausfeld, the lead attorney for one of the suits. (Times Online, 5/13/08)

The companies argue that the plaintiffs’ cases are weak. Francis Barron, a lawyer representing the corporations named in the suits, said "None of the plaintiffs' many complaints and amended complaints alleges that [the companies] took specific steps for the purpose of furthering apartheid.” (Christian Science Monitor, 5/13/08)

Copyright © 2009 Informify

Sources

Victims of apartheid can sue multinationals (Times Online, 5/12/08)

South Africa: Apartheid Victims to Sue Multinationals (AllAfrica.com, 5/13/08)

U.S. high court allows apartheid claims against multinationals (Christian Science Monitor, 5/13/08)

South Africa Under Apartheid (Wikipedia)

Question for Readers:

Do you think citizens of other countries should be allowed to sue American companies for violating international law?