'Dangerous Precedent': US High Court Sides With Corporate Giants Nestle and
Cargill in Child Slavery Case
Neal Katyal, who defended Nestle and Cargill before the Supreme Court
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)
0
GIVE
$
'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."
JULIA CONLEY, STAFF WRITER
June 17, 2021
Human rights advocates Thursday denounced a Supreme Court decision in favor
of the U.S. corporate giants Nestlé 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 companiesbut 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 Côte dIvoire, 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 Nestlé and Cargill have total control
over the production of cocoa in Côte dIvoire, 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 Côte dIvoire 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
Nestlé 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 Juneteenththe 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."