SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Neal Katyal speaks during the Aspen Ideas Festival 2015 on July 3, 2015 in Aspen, Colorado. The attorney defended Nestle and Cargill, two companies accused of using child slavery in Africa, before the U.S. Supreme Court. (Photo: Leigh Vogel/WireImage)
'Dangerous Precedent': US High Court Sides With Corporate Giants Nestle and Cargill in Child Slavery Case
A lawyer for six men who alleged they were victims of human trafficking said the corporations "should be held accountable for abetting a system of child slavery."
Jun 17, 2021
Human rights advocates Thursday denounced a Supreme Court decision in favor of the U.S. corporate giants Nestle USA and Cargill, which were sued more than a decade ago by six men who say the two companies were complicit in child trafficking and profited when the men were enslaved on cocoa farms as children.
The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against the plaintiffs, saying they had not proven the companies' activities in the U.S. were sufficiently tied to the alleged child trafficking. The companies had argued that they could not be sued in the U.S. for activities that took place in West Africa.
Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general under the Obama administration, represented the two companies and also argued that they could not be sued for complicity in child trafficking because they are corporations, not individuals.
Writing at Slate last December, Mark Joseph Stern called Katyal's position "radical" and "extreme," detailing the nine justice's skepticism about his defense of the companies--but the court ultimately sided with him.
"This ruling has disturbing implications for future victims of human rights abuses seeking justice against businesses in U.S. courts. This ruling also sets a dangerous precedent, giving corporations impunity for profiting from human rights abuses." --Marco Simons, EarthRights International
The plaintiffs, who are from Mali and say they are survivors of child trafficking and slavery in Cote d'Ivoire, filed their lawsuit under the Alien Tort Statute, an 18th century law which allows federal courts to hear civil actions filed by foreigners regarding offenses "committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States."
In recent years the Court has limited when the law can be invoked in court, arguing it cannot be used to file a lawsuit when the offense was committed "almost entirely abroad," according to the New York Times.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that Nestle and Cargill have total control over the production of cocoa in Cote d'Ivoire, where child labor is widespread and where the men said they were forced to work long hours and to sleep in locked shacks at night.
The U.S. Department of Labor recently reported that the use of child labor on family farms in cocoa-growing areas of Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana increased from 31 percent to 45 percent between 2008 and 2019.
The corporations "should be held accountable for abetting a system of child slavery," said Paul Hoffman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in October 2018 that Nestle and Cargill couldn't avoid the lawsuits, but writing for the Supreme Court majority on Thursday, Justice Clarence Thomas said the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the companies' conduct "occurred in the United States ... even if other conduct occurred abroad" and that the companies made "major operational decisions" in the United States.
EarthRights International, which filed an amicus brief with the court on behalf of the plaintiffs, called the ruling "a giant step backward for U.S. leadership on international law and protecting human rights."
"The ruling implies that U.S. corporations whose executives decide, from comfortable American boardrooms, to profit from murder, torture, and slavery abroad cannot be sued in U.S. federal courts for violating international law," said Marco Simons, general counsel for the organization. "This ruling has disturbing implications for future victims of human rights abuses seeking justice against businesses in U.S. courts. This ruling also sets a dangerous precedent, giving corporations impunity for profiting from human rights abuses."
Organizer Bree Newsome noted the irony of the ruling on the day the U.S. Congress passed legislation recognizing Juneteenth--the day Union soldiers arrived in Texas and informed Black people who had been enslaved that slavery had ended with the Civil War.
"In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal today to protect victims of corporate human rights abuses, it is imperative that Congress take action," said Simons. "We call on Congress to clarify U.S. courts' responsibilities to enforce international law, reassert U.S. leadership on human rights, and provide remedies to victims of the most serious human rights abuses by enacting binding legislation that holds corporations accountable for violating human rights."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Human rights advocates Thursday denounced a Supreme Court decision in favor of the U.S. corporate giants Nestle USA and Cargill, which were sued more than a decade ago by six men who say the two companies were complicit in child trafficking and profited when the men were enslaved on cocoa farms as children.
The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against the plaintiffs, saying they had not proven the companies' activities in the U.S. were sufficiently tied to the alleged child trafficking. The companies had argued that they could not be sued in the U.S. for activities that took place in West Africa.
Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general under the Obama administration, represented the two companies and also argued that they could not be sued for complicity in child trafficking because they are corporations, not individuals.
Writing at Slate last December, Mark Joseph Stern called Katyal's position "radical" and "extreme," detailing the nine justice's skepticism about his defense of the companies--but the court ultimately sided with him.
"This ruling has disturbing implications for future victims of human rights abuses seeking justice against businesses in U.S. courts. This ruling also sets a dangerous precedent, giving corporations impunity for profiting from human rights abuses." --Marco Simons, EarthRights International
The plaintiffs, who are from Mali and say they are survivors of child trafficking and slavery in Cote d'Ivoire, filed their lawsuit under the Alien Tort Statute, an 18th century law which allows federal courts to hear civil actions filed by foreigners regarding offenses "committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States."
In recent years the Court has limited when the law can be invoked in court, arguing it cannot be used to file a lawsuit when the offense was committed "almost entirely abroad," according to the New York Times.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that Nestle and Cargill have total control over the production of cocoa in Cote d'Ivoire, where child labor is widespread and where the men said they were forced to work long hours and to sleep in locked shacks at night.
The U.S. Department of Labor recently reported that the use of child labor on family farms in cocoa-growing areas of Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana increased from 31 percent to 45 percent between 2008 and 2019.
The corporations "should be held accountable for abetting a system of child slavery," said Paul Hoffman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in October 2018 that Nestle and Cargill couldn't avoid the lawsuits, but writing for the Supreme Court majority on Thursday, Justice Clarence Thomas said the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the companies' conduct "occurred in the United States ... even if other conduct occurred abroad" and that the companies made "major operational decisions" in the United States.
EarthRights International, which filed an amicus brief with the court on behalf of the plaintiffs, called the ruling "a giant step backward for U.S. leadership on international law and protecting human rights."
"The ruling implies that U.S. corporations whose executives decide, from comfortable American boardrooms, to profit from murder, torture, and slavery abroad cannot be sued in U.S. federal courts for violating international law," said Marco Simons, general counsel for the organization. "This ruling has disturbing implications for future victims of human rights abuses seeking justice against businesses in U.S. courts. This ruling also sets a dangerous precedent, giving corporations impunity for profiting from human rights abuses."
Organizer Bree Newsome noted the irony of the ruling on the day the U.S. Congress passed legislation recognizing Juneteenth--the day Union soldiers arrived in Texas and informed Black people who had been enslaved that slavery had ended with the Civil War.
"In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal today to protect victims of corporate human rights abuses, it is imperative that Congress take action," said Simons. "We call on Congress to clarify U.S. courts' responsibilities to enforce international law, reassert U.S. leadership on human rights, and provide remedies to victims of the most serious human rights abuses by enacting binding legislation that holds corporations accountable for violating human rights."
Human rights advocates Thursday denounced a Supreme Court decision in favor of the U.S. corporate giants Nestle USA and Cargill, which were sued more than a decade ago by six men who say the two companies were complicit in child trafficking and profited when the men were enslaved on cocoa farms as children.
The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against the plaintiffs, saying they had not proven the companies' activities in the U.S. were sufficiently tied to the alleged child trafficking. The companies had argued that they could not be sued in the U.S. for activities that took place in West Africa.
Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general under the Obama administration, represented the two companies and also argued that they could not be sued for complicity in child trafficking because they are corporations, not individuals.
Writing at Slate last December, Mark Joseph Stern called Katyal's position "radical" and "extreme," detailing the nine justice's skepticism about his defense of the companies--but the court ultimately sided with him.
"This ruling has disturbing implications for future victims of human rights abuses seeking justice against businesses in U.S. courts. This ruling also sets a dangerous precedent, giving corporations impunity for profiting from human rights abuses." --Marco Simons, EarthRights International
The plaintiffs, who are from Mali and say they are survivors of child trafficking and slavery in Cote d'Ivoire, filed their lawsuit under the Alien Tort Statute, an 18th century law which allows federal courts to hear civil actions filed by foreigners regarding offenses "committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States."
In recent years the Court has limited when the law can be invoked in court, arguing it cannot be used to file a lawsuit when the offense was committed "almost entirely abroad," according to the New York Times.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that Nestle and Cargill have total control over the production of cocoa in Cote d'Ivoire, where child labor is widespread and where the men said they were forced to work long hours and to sleep in locked shacks at night.
The U.S. Department of Labor recently reported that the use of child labor on family farms in cocoa-growing areas of Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana increased from 31 percent to 45 percent between 2008 and 2019.
The corporations "should be held accountable for abetting a system of child slavery," said Paul Hoffman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in October 2018 that Nestle and Cargill couldn't avoid the lawsuits, but writing for the Supreme Court majority on Thursday, Justice Clarence Thomas said the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the companies' conduct "occurred in the United States ... even if other conduct occurred abroad" and that the companies made "major operational decisions" in the United States.
EarthRights International, which filed an amicus brief with the court on behalf of the plaintiffs, called the ruling "a giant step backward for U.S. leadership on international law and protecting human rights."
"The ruling implies that U.S. corporations whose executives decide, from comfortable American boardrooms, to profit from murder, torture, and slavery abroad cannot be sued in U.S. federal courts for violating international law," said Marco Simons, general counsel for the organization. "This ruling has disturbing implications for future victims of human rights abuses seeking justice against businesses in U.S. courts. This ruling also sets a dangerous precedent, giving corporations impunity for profiting from human rights abuses."
Organizer Bree Newsome noted the irony of the ruling on the day the U.S. Congress passed legislation recognizing Juneteenth--the day Union soldiers arrived in Texas and informed Black people who had been enslaved that slavery had ended with the Civil War.
"In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal today to protect victims of corporate human rights abuses, it is imperative that Congress take action," said Simons. "We call on Congress to clarify U.S. courts' responsibilities to enforce international law, reassert U.S. leadership on human rights, and provide remedies to victims of the most serious human rights abuses by enacting binding legislation that holds corporations accountable for violating human rights."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.