Ethics Newsline®

WASHINGTON
In a controversial case, the U.S. Supreme Court last week upheld the right of foreigners to use U.S. courts to sue over human rights abuses committed overseas — a decision closely watched for its implications in the wake of abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison.

In its decision, the court ruled that an obscure 1789 law passed by the first U.S. Congress and signed by President George Washington has modern applications that go beyond its initial target of thwarting high-seas piracy and similar crimes.

According to the court’s 6-to-3 ruling, the law, known as the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), also sweepingly protects people anywhere in the world from human rights abuses perpetrated by any foreign power.

That view is bitterly disputed by many U.S. companies, some of which currently face lawsuits for alleged abuses — often energy firms accused of suppressing locals or damaging their lands — reported the New York Times.

The Bush administration also fought the ruling, which could have implications stemming from the government’s actions in Iraq. Two government contractors, CACI and Titan Corp., recently were sued on charges of abusing Iraqi prisoners in their custody. That lawsuit was filed partly on the basis of the ATS, reported the Associated Press.

While the court said such lawsuits are authorized by U.S. law, it urged judges to exercise caution in accepting ATS-based cases that could impact the purview of the other branches of government.

“There is a strong argument that federal courts should give serious weight to the executive branch’s view of the case’s impact on foreign policy,” Justice David Souter cautioned in the court’s ruling.

While last week’s decision was hailed as a landmark win by human rights groups, the specific case that led to the ruling was defeated, reported the AP.

In that case, a Mexican doctor abducted by bounty hunters hired by the U.S. government filed a lawsuit after eventually being acquitted of drug charges in a U.S. court. While a federal appeals court said damages were warranted, the Supreme Court disagreed, ruling unanimously that his abduction and detention were too fleeting to warrant classification as human rights abuses.