Skip to content Skip to footer

Kiobel Decision: Supreme Court Limits US Courts’ Ability to Use Human Rights Law to Address Human Rights Abuses Committed Abroad

Today, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, a case that raised the question of whether corporations could be held accountable for human rights abuses and whether U.S. federal courts can hear claims arising from human rights violations committed abroad under the Alien Tort Statute. The Center for Constitutional Rights brought the ground-breaking case Filártiga v Peña-Irala, which first launched ATS human rights litigation in 1980.

Honest, paywall-free news is rare. Please support our boldly independent journalism with a donation of any size.

New York, NY – Today, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, a case that raised the question of whether corporations could be held accountable for human rights abuses and whether U.S. federal courts can hear claims arising from human rights violations committed abroad under the Alien Tort Statute. The Center for Constitutional Rights brought the ground-breaking case Filártiga v Peña-Irala, which first launched ATS human rights litigation in 1980.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is deeply troubled by the Supreme Court’s decision to undercut 30 years of jurisprudence to limit U.S. courts’ ability to hear cases on human rights violations committed outside the United States.

In the last three decades, we have seen the Alien Tort Statute shine a light on global human rights violations and serve as a beacon for victims seeking redress. Today’s decision moves one step closer to shutting the court room doors to victims of war crimes and torture. However, those cases brought against defendants, including corporations, whose actions “touch and concern the territory of the United States…with sufficient force” should remain on notice they can still be held accountable for their abuses outside the U.S. This ruling is not a grant of immunity from liability.

The Court has left many questions open for another day, and we will work to ensure that the basic purpose of the ATS – reflected in the Filártiga decision – to provide a place for all victims of human rights abuses to seek justice and accountability.

We will continue to challenge corporate human rights abuses and abuses by individual torturers and war criminals, no matter where they are committed.

For an overview of ATS cases and resources, visit: https://www.ccrjustice.org/ATSoverview.

A terrifying moment. We appeal for your support.

In the last weeks, we have witnessed an authoritarian assault on communities in Minnesota and across the nation.

The need for truthful, grassroots reporting is urgent at this cataclysmic historical moment. Yet, Trump-aligned billionaires and other allies have taken over many legacy media outlets — the culmination of a decades-long campaign to place control of the narrative into the hands of the political right.

We refuse to let Trump’s blatant propaganda machine go unchecked. Untethered to corporate ownership or advertisers, Truthout remains fearless in our reporting and our determination to use journalism as a tool for justice.

But we need your help just to fund our basic expenses. Over 80 percent of Truthout’s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors.

Truthout has launched a fundraiser to add 310 new monthly donors in the next 4 days. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger one-time gift, Truthout only works with your support.