Blog: Amicus Curiae

  • Page 1 of 1

August 25, 2020

Human Rights Clinic team submits amicus brief in Chiquita Brands lawsuit

Posted by Dana Walters

Chiquita bananas on display in grocery store
Credit: cbarnesphotography/iStock

If everything had gone according to schedule, the International Human Rights Clinic (IHRC) would have filed an amicus curiae brief in December 2019 in a case against Chiquita Brands International, the world’s largest banana company. The suit, on behalf of families who suffered mass atrocities by paramilitary groups during the Colombian armed conflict, seeks accountability for the reign of terror Chiquita aided and abetted from 1997 to 2004.

However, after several delays and further challenges caused by the pandemic, the clinic and the Center for Justice and Accountability (CJA) finally filed the brief on behalf of human rights experts on June 5, 2020. The process included dozens of drafts and memos, multiple back-and-forths with amici, and hundreds of hours of time of a dozen alumni and students in multiple time zones. The amicus brief is one small part of a larger, evolving corporate accountability litigation landscape, one in which the clinic has been involved for decades. In a globalized economy where supply chains are diffused, attorneys and affected communities have sought to use U.S. courts to stop U.S. corporations and executives from assisting in violating human rights abroad.

“Chiquita and cases like it present a central question facing U.S. courts today—whether the United States is going to become a safe haven for U.S. corporations implicated in human rights violations outside the country,” said Tyler Giannini, co-director of Harvard Law School’s Human Rights Program (HRP) and the IHRC.

Continue Reading…

June 18, 2011

Clinic Files Amicus Curiae Brief with U.S. Supreme Court


PRESS RELEASE


Brief in major corporate Alien Tort Statute case argues, on behalf of legal historians, that corporations can be held liable
for supporting and assisting human rights violations

June 17, 2011, Cambridge, MA—Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court today in support of a petition for certiorari in a major corporate Alien Tort Statute (ATS) case, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.

The Clinic served as counsel of record on behalf of professors of legal history who argue that Congress adopted the ATS to provide plaintiffs with a meaningful domestic remedy in federal court for violations of international law.  According to the amici, creating a special exemption for corporate defendants, as the Second Circuit did in Kiobel, contradicts the original purpose of the statute as well as its plain text, and ignores the history of enforcement of international law violations against corporations.

“Dating back to the 1600s, with cases against the East India Company involving violations of international law, the historical record shows that the Second Circuit erred in its ruling,” said Clinical Director Tyler Giannini.  “The drafters of the Alien Tort Statute wanted to provide a broad remedy for all torts in violation of the law of nations, and the text of the statute excludes no class of defendant.”

Giannini and Associate Clinical Director Susan Farbstein served as counsel and supervised the writing of the brief.  Harvard Law School students Poppy Alexander, JD ’12, Russell Kornblith, JD ’12, and Marissa Vahlsing, JD ’11, contributed to the research, conceptualization, and drafting of the brief.

“We spent countless hours reading the cases and treatises that the framers of the ATS would have read,” Alexander said.  “To have the opportunity in law school to work this closely with a team that includes eminent legal historians, to help form an argument, and then to see it through to the end, is very special.”

The Kiobel opinion represents a significant departure from established ATS jurisprudence, and deprives survivors of corporate misconduct of a valuable tool for seeking justice.

“If the Second Circuit’s decision stands, a corporation could operate the modern-day equivalent of the Nazi death camps or trade in slaves, and it would be exempt from civil liability under the ATS,” Farbstein said.  “History shows that the statute’s drafters never would have contemplated such a corporate exception.”

Continue Reading…

  • Page 1 of 1