Judge Posner on corporations

Judge Posner

"A corporation is a ganglion of relations with people, most of whom, in the case of a railroad anyway, are not rich--shippers, railroad workers, passengers, employees of suppliers, shippers' customers, and families of the foregoing. Even if all the corporation's shareholders are rich, it is by no means certain that the predominant part of any increase in the corporation's costs that is due to more extensive tort liability will come to rest on them rather than on the persons with whom the corporation is economically entwined. Then too large corporation will on average be a defendant in more suits than will a small one; the total burden on it may be no less..."

Richard A. Posner, Cardozo: A Study in Reputation 47-48 (1990).

Law in Plain English: Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum

This is one in a series of posts designed to describe court decisions in plain English. For more detail and background on the legal issues, see the link to the case below. For similar posts, click here.

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum

Kiobel and others filed a lawsuit under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) alleging that Royal Dutch Petroleum and other oil companies had an agreement with the Nigerian government to use military force against those protesting oil drilling in Nigeria. The ATS is a one-sentence provision that was passed in 1789 but rarely used until 1980, when it began to be used against torture or other human rights violations. The questions before the Court were: First, whether the ATS applies at all, since the alleged human rights violations took place outside of the United States and within the sovereign territory of another country; and second, if the ATS does apply, whether corporations should be treated like private individuals, and thus subject to tort liability for violations. In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the ATS, and nothing in the statute rebuts that presumption. As a result, the ATS does not apply to the  alleged conduct alleged by Kiobel and others. The practical impact of this decision is to significantly limit the future use of the ATS because alleged human rights violations that take place outside of the United States and within the sovereign territory of another country won't be covered.

Ferguson Township Community Bill of Rights is a Bill of Disaster

In September, I blogged briefly about a proposed "community bill of rights" on the ballot in Ferguson Township, Pennsylvania. I didn't spend much time on it because 1) from a constitutional perspective, it was a complete disaster; and 2) frankly, I didn't think it would pass.

The township considered an injunction to allow the measure's constitutionality to be tested in court before appearing on the ballot, but decided to allow the vote first.

Anyways, I should mention that it did pass: 4,272-3,896.

The cruel irony of this "bill of rights" is that many of the provisions are extremely hostile to individual rights, especially property rights. Additionally, other provisions assert power that the township has no authority to assert in the first place. All in all, a disaster of epic proportions.

I would be surprised if any significant portion of this "bill of rights" goes into effect. If it does, the slippery slope will have gotten a lot steeper.

Ferguson Township Community Bill of Rights

Ferguson Township is a mostly rural township in Centre County, Pennsylvania, just west of State College. This fall, the citizens of Ferguson Township gathered enough signatures to place a measure on the November ballot to amend the township's home rule charter to create a Community Bill of Rights.

Here's the text. There are so many problems with this thing I stopped counting.
Ferguson Township Petition for Community Bill of Rights