Establishing Purpose as a Standard for Accessorial Liability under the ATS: Analysis of Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Matthew Mathiang Deang

Establishing Purpose as a Standard for Accessorial Liability under the ATS: Analysis of Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Matthew Mathiang Deang

Introduction

The case of Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Matthew Mathiang Deang, 582 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2009), represents a pivotal moment in the interpretation and application of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) concerning corporate accountability for human rights violations. The plaintiffs, Sudanese individuals and the Presbyterian Church of Sudan, alleged that Talisman Energy, Inc., a Canadian oil corporation, aided and abetted the Sudanese government's human rights abuses in Khartoum. The central issues revolved around whether Talisman's actions constituted substantial assistance to the Sudanese government's violations of international law, thereby meeting the standards for accessorial liability under the ATS.

Summary of the Judgment

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims against Talisman Energy under the ATS. The court held that, in accordance with principles set forth in SOSA v. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN, accessorial liability requires a showing of purpose rather than mere knowledge. The plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence that Talisman acted with the intent to facilitate the Sudanese government's human rights abuses, thereby not meeting the threshold for aiding and abetting under international law.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key precedents to shape the court's reasoning:

  • SOSA v. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN: Established the modern framework for ATS claims, emphasizing caution and the need for clear international consensus before recognizing new violations.
  • Filártiga v. Peña-Irala: Expanded the scope of the ATS to include deliberate torture by state actors as a violation of universally accepted norms.
  • KADIC v. KARADZIC: Affirmed that genocide and war crimes could be actionable under the ATS without state involvement.
  • Khulumani v. Barclay National Bank Ltd.: Suggested that aiding and abetting could be a viable theory under the ATS within the Second Circuit.
  • HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD: Clarified the limited recognition of conspiracy under international law, restricting it to grand offenses like genocide and aggressive war.

Legal Reasoning

The court focused on delineating the standards for accessorial liability under the ATS. Drawing from international law, particularly the Rome Statute, the Second Circuit established that the mens rea (mental state) required for aiding and abetting must be purposeful rather than merely knowing. This means that a defendant must intend to facilitate the principal's violation of international law, not just be aware that such violations are taking place.

Applying this standard, the court scrutinized the evidence presented by plaintiffs and found it insufficient to infer that Talisman operated with the specific intent to contribute to the Sudanese government's abuses. The technical and logistical support provided by Talisman, such as building roads and upgrading airstrips, was deemed part of standard operational necessities rather than actions driven by a purpose to aid human rights violations.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future ATS litigation, particularly concerning corporate liability for international human rights abuses. By establishing purpose as a crucial element for accessorial liability, the Second Circuit sets a high bar for plaintiffs seeking to hold corporations accountable for secondary involvement in human rights violations. It emphasizes the necessity of demonstrating intent, thereby potentially limiting the scope of ATS claims against corporations acting in complex international environments.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Alien Tort Statute (ATS)

The ATS is a provision in U.S. law that allows non-U.S. citizens to file civil lawsuits in U.S. courts for violations of international law. Historically underused, its interpretation has expanded to encompass a range of human rights abuses.

Accessorial Liability

This legal concept holds that an individual or entity can be held responsible for assisting, facilitating, or contributing to the commission of a wrongful act, even if they did not directly engage in the act itself.

Mens Rea

A Latin term meaning "guilty mind," mens rea refers to the mental state of intent or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime under the law. In this case, the court required proof of purposeful intent to aid the Sudanese government's abuses.

Customary International Law

These are international obligations arising from established state practice, as opposed to obligations arising from formal written conventions and treaties. The court relied on customary international law to determine the standards applicable under the ATS.

Conclusion

The Second Circuit's decision in Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Matthew Mathiang Deang reinforces the stringent requirements for establishing accessorial liability under the ATS. By mandating a purpose-driven standard, the court ensures that only those entities with clear intent to facilitate human rights abuses can be held accountable. This ruling not only narrows the scope of potential ATS claims against corporations but also underscores the judiciary's cautious approach in expanding statutory interpretations without robust international consensus. For corporations operating in volatile regions, this judgment highlights the critical importance of demonstrating purposeful intent when engaging in business activities that intersect with complex human rights landscapes.

Case Details

Year: 2009
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Judge(s)

Dennis G. Jacobs

Attorney(S)

Paul L. Hoffman, Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris Hoffman, Venice, CA, (Adrienne J. Quarry, Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris Hoffman, Venice, CA; Carey D'Avino, Stephen Whinston, and Keino Robinson, Berger Montague, P.C., Philadelphia, PA; Lawrence Kill, John O'Connor, and Stanley Bowker, Anderson Kill Olick, P.C., New York, NY; Daniel E. Seltz, Steven E. Fineman, and Rachel Geman, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, LLP, New York, NY, on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Marc J. Gottridge (Joseph P. Cyr, Scott W. Reynolds, Andrew M. Behrman, on the brief), Lovells, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee. Ralph Steinhardt, Professor of Law, George Washington University Law-School, Washington, DC, (William J. Aceves, Professor of Law, California Western School of Law, San Diego, CA, on the brief) for Amici Curiae International Law Scholars in Support of Appellants. Richard L. Herz (Marco B. Simons, on the brief), Earthrights International, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Earthrights International in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants and Reversal. Judith Brown Chomsky and Michael Poulshock, Law Office of Judith Brown Chomsky, Elkins Park, PA, and Jennifer M. Green and Katherine Gallagher, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae on Civil Conspiracy and Joint Criminal Enterprise in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants and in Support of Reversal of the District Court's Opinion. Terrence P. Collingsworth, Derek Baxter, and Natacha Thys, International Labor Rights Fund, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae International Labor Rights Fund in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants. Mark Diamond, Counsel for Amici Curaie, New York, NY, for Amici Curiae Lexiuste Cajuste, Neris Gonzalez, Zenaida Velasquez Rodriguez, and Francisco Calderon in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants Urging Reversal. Renee C. Redman, Legal Director, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Connecticut, Hartford, CT, for Amici Curiae Canadian Parliamentarians in Support of the Appellants. Jonathan W. Cuneo and R. Brent Walton, Cuneo Gilbert LaDuca, LLP, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae The Rt. Reverand Keith L. Ackerman, SSC, Bishop, Diocese of Quincy, the Episcopal Church; Christian Solidarity International-USA; Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights; Family Research Council; Institute on Religion Democracy; Renew Network; Servant's Heart; Sudan Advocacy Action Forum; Sudan Sunrise; and Trinity Presbytery's Sudan Ministry in Support of Appellants. Lewis S. Yelin, Attorney, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, (Michael J. Garcia, United States Attorney, and David S. Jones, Assistant United States Attorney, Southern District of New York, New York, NY, John B. Bellinger III, Legal Advisor, Department of State, Washington, DC, Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Douglas N. Letter and Robert M. Loeb, Attorneys, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, on the brief), for Amicus Curiae United States. Samuel Estreicher, Nyu School of Law, New York, NY, (Michael D. Ramsey, University of San Diego School of Law, San Diego, CA on the brief), for Amici Curiae Professors of International Law, Federal Jurisdiction and the Foreign Relations Law of the United States in Support of Defendant-Appellee. Karen M. Asner and Milana Salzman, White Case LLP, New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae the Government of Canada in Support of Dismissal of the Underlying Action. Robin S. Conrad and Amar D. Sarwal, National Chamber Litigation Center, Inc., Washington, DC, and John Townsend Rich, Paul R. Friedman, and William F. Sheehan, Goodwin Proctor LLP, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in Support of Defendant-Appellee Talisman Energy, Inc. and in Support of Affirmance. Daniel J. Popeo and Richard A. Samp, Washington Legal Foundation, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae Washington Legal Foundation and Allied Educational Foundation in Support of Defendant/Appellee, Urging Affirmance. James J. Dillon, Foley Hoag LLP, Boston, MA, Janet Walker, Professor of Law, Osgood Hall Law School of York University. Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and H. Scott Fairley, Theall Group LLP, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, for Amici Curiae the Canadian Chamber of Commerce; the Mining Association of Canada; the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers; and the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada in Support of Defendant-Appellee. James J. Dillon, Foley Hoag LLP, Boston, MA, for Amici Curiae The National Foreign Trade Council; The Independent Petroleum Association of America; and The United States Council for International Business in Support of Defendant-Appellee. Christopher Greenwood, CMG, QC, Essex Court Chambers, London, United Kingdom, for Amicus Curiae Professor Christopher Greenwood, CMG, QC, in Support of Defendant-Appellee. James Crawford, Whewell Professor of International Law, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom, for Amicus Curiae Professor James Crawford in Support of Defendant-Appellee.

Comments