IntLawGrrls |
| Posted: 05 Aug 2010 02:05 PM PDT  63-37.Not quite the 98-0 by which the Senate, in the days before polarization, confirmed John Paul Stevens. But today's 63 Senate votes were more than enough so that Solicitor General Elena Kagan (left) now succeeds him as a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Echoing a theme addressed in our prior posts on Kagan's nomination, the Washington Post noted that she'll be America's 4th-ever woman Justice. Moreover, A good day for 'Grrls. And not a bad birthday-week present for the President who nominated 2 of the 4 women Justices, either.  |
| Posted: 05 Aug 2010 02:49 AM PDT  In a just-published ASIL Insight, our colleague Paul B. Stephan sees more than securities laws at stake in the recent U.S. Supreme Court trimming of extraterritoriality.Stephan, both the John C. Jeffries, Jr., Distinguished Professor of Law and the Elizabeth D. and Richard A. Merrill Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, deftly detailed Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion for the 5-member majority in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Limited (June 24, 2010). (credit for below left photo) Other thought-provoking discussions of this decision were posted here, here, here, and here at Opinio Juris. In Morrison, the Court affirmed dismissal of a lawsuit alleging civil fraud in violation of § 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and its implementing Rule 10b-5. The suit, to quote Stephan's Insight, "involved only foreign plaintiffs, securities issed by a foreign company, and transactions in those securities that took place exclusively in a foreign country." Scalia's opinion underscored that there is a presumption against extraterritoriality, one that requires "Congress to clearly indicate when it wanted its rules to apply to foreign conduct."  Stephan termed the decision "a firm and unambiguous rebuke" of the tendency by some lower courts to give securities laws greater extraterritorial reach. That pronouncement pretermits the contrary viewpoints of the 3 remaining Justices (Sonia Sotomayor did not participate): Stephen G. Breyer, in a separate opinion that suggested the suit yet might go forward under other federal statutes, concurred only in part, while John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurred only in the judgment and not at in the majority's reasoning; indeed, their joint opinion opened with the declaration that theywould adhere to the general approach that has been the law in the Second Circuit, and most of the rest of the country, for nearly four decades. Nonetheless, the pronouncement is accurate as a matter of counting current Court noses. As interesting as the description of the judgment is Stephan's additional observation. He rightly wrote that one must wonder what Morrison implies about other statutes. Particularly noted is the means by which noncitizen plaintiffs have sought relief in U.S. federal courts for torts committed in violation of the law of nations or U.S. treaties. That means, of course, is Alien Tort Statute (prior IntLawGrrls posts). Alien Tort cases have involved events in all corners of the earth. "The Justice Department in several briefs has argued that the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to this statute," Stephan wrote (citing this 1 U.S. amicus brief, which dates from the 2d term of President George W. Bush). The Insight adds that  "[s]cholarly support exists" for such a position. All may be tested soon: Stephan noted that the question's presented in Talisman Energy (photo credit), an Alien Tort case involving the oil field in Sudan, which the Supreme Court has been asked to review.Another thought jumps to mind: Any chance that a Court cutback campaign might reach to a sector in which extraterritoriality has grown steadily, with judicial approval, in the years of the so-called wars on drugs and terror? That is, to extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction?  |
| Posted: 05 Aug 2010 01:04 AM PDT  On this day in ...... 2006, 2 of the 5 permanent Council members, the United States and France, circulated a draft U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Lebanon, site for nearly 4 weeks of warfare between Israel and Hezbollah. (map credit) The proposal made little headway on account of opposition by Middle East countries. The New York Times reported: The stalling of progress at the United Nations reflected an outpouring of condemnation across the Middle East, demonstrating a conviction that the proposed resolution spoke to all of Israel's demands, backed by the United States, without addressing those of Hezbollah. On August 11 the Council would pass a revised ceasefire measure, Resolution 1701 (2006). (Prior August 5 posts are here, here, and here.)  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from IntLawGrrls To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
IntLawGrrls Part 1
IntLawGrrls Part 1
IntLawGrrls Part 1
Tags: IntLawGrrls, IntLawGrrls watch online, full IntLawGrrls video, IntLawGrrls download, IntLawGrrls torrent, free IntLawGrrls, IntLawGrrls megavideo, IntLawGrrls full, IntLawGrrls eng sub
0 comments:
Post a Comment