abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

Diese Seite ist nicht auf Deutsch verfügbar und wird angezeigt auf English


3 Mai 2013

Center for Constitutional Rights, et al.

[PDF] Al Shimari v. CACI - Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendant CACI Premier Technology, Inc.'s motion for reconsideration of the Court's order reinstating Plaintiffs' Alien Tort Claims [DKt. #159] or in the alternative to dismiss the Alien Tort Stat

Alle Tags anzeigen
Defendant, CACI Premier Technology Corp. (“CACI”) seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”) claims on an implausibly simplistic reading of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co…and the decades of ATS jurisprudence underlying it. According to CACI, Kiobel imposes a “bright line” rule that prohibits the Court from recognizing any otherwise cognizable ATS claims if the alleged violation “occurred outside the United States.” Def. Br. 7. Such a categorical bar, however, does not represent the opinion of the Court; it reflects only the concurring opinion of Justice Alito which garnered only one additional vote… Plaintiffs ATS claims are in no way foreclosed by Kiobel.