U.S. justices question Arab Bank liability in militant attacks

[Disir]

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both conservatives, indicated that U.S. foreign policy tensions that could arise from such cases would be a reason to curb corporate liability. Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often casts the deciding vote in big cases, also appeared sympathetic to the bank’s arguments.

Their remarks during an hour of arguments in the case raised the possibility that the court, with a 5-4 conservative majority, could rule in favor of the Jordan-based bank in the lawsuit seeking to hold it financially liable for the Islamist attacks.

...The plaintiffs said Arab Bank used its New York branch to transfer money that helped Hamas and other groups fund attacks and reward families of the perpetrators between 1995 and 2005.


The underlying legal question is whether corporations can be sued under a U.S. law called the Alien Tort Statute, which dates to 1789. In recent years, human rights lawyers have used it to seek damages against companies in U.S. courts for human rights violations abroad.
U.S. justices question Arab Bank liability in militant attacks

Foreign entanglements? Really?
.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both conservatives, indicated that U.S. foreign policy tensions that could arise from such cases would be a reason to curb corporate liability. Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often casts the deciding vote in big cases, also appeared sympathetic to the bank’s arguments.

Their remarks during an hour of arguments in the case raised the possibility that the court, with a 5-4 conservative majority, could rule in favor of the Jordan-based bank in the lawsuit seeking to hold it financially liable for the Islamist attacks.

...The plaintiffs said Arab Bank used its New York branch to transfer money that helped Hamas and other groups fund attacks and reward families of the perpetrators between 1995 and 2005.


The underlying legal question is whether corporations can be sued under a U.S. law called the Alien Tort Statute, which dates to 1789. In recent years, human rights lawyers have used it to seek damages against companies in U.S. courts for human rights violations abroad.
U.S. justices question Arab Bank liability in militant attacks

Foreign entanglements? Really?
.

They're almost certainly going to rule in favor of Arab Bank, and set a precedent declaring that the ATS cannot be used to sue foreign corporations.

 

[Disir]

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both conservatives, indicated that U.S. foreign policy tensions that could arise from such cases would be a reason to curb corporate liability. Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often casts the deciding vote in big cases, also appeared sympathetic to the bank’s arguments.

Their remarks during an hour of arguments in the case raised the possibility that the court, with a 5-4 conservative majority, could rule in favor of the Jordan-based bank in the lawsuit seeking to hold it financially liable for the Islamist attacks.

...The plaintiffs said Arab Bank used its New York branch to transfer money that helped Hamas and other groups fund attacks and reward families of the perpetrators between 1995 and 2005.


The underlying legal question is whether corporations can be sued under a U.S. law called the Alien Tort Statute, which dates to 1789. In recent years, human rights lawyers have used it to seek damages against companies in U.S. courts for human rights violations abroad.
U.S. justices question Arab Bank liability in militant attacks

Foreign entanglements? Really?
.

They're almost certainly going to rule in favor of Arab Bank, and set a precedent declaring that the ATS cannot be used to sue foreign corporations.

I get that. It's the BS behind it that is maddening.