Minnesota Law Review

Note, Tortured Language: “Individuals,” Corporate Liability, and the Torture Victim Protection Act

The Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) allows persons who have been subjected to torture or extrajudicial killing to pursue a tort action against “individual[s]” who have committed such actions “under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation.” In the past decade, activists and human rights organizations have lodged dozens of accusations of human rights violations against well-known corporations on several continents. In light of these circumstances, the survivors of such violations have increasingly turned to the TVPA as an avenue for redress against corporations who have allegedly hired paramilitary or security forces to violently disrupt labor demonstrations or other forms of protest.

Although the first circuit court to consider such actions allowed them to proceed, a small but growing number of circuit courts are rejecting the suggestion that corporations may be liable under the Act, noting that the statute uses the word “individual” instead of “person” when describing the liable actor. Because several appellate courts continue to reject other statutory bases for such actions against human rights abusers, corporations are confronted with virtually no economic incentive to refrain from engaging in such practices. As such, Congress’s purposes for adopting the TVPA are thwarted by the limitations that some appellate courts find in the language of the Act. With the Supreme Court poised to consider the question of corporate liability under the TVPA during the current term, the fate of the sole tort remedy available for many victims of torture hangs in the balance.

The Note argues that while the language of the TVPA is ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations, strong policy interests weigh in favor of allowing torture survivors to pursue a civil action against corporations for human rights abuses under the statute. After considering these policy interests, the history and language of the Act, and the accompanying legislative history, the Note calls on the Supreme Court to recognize that corporations should be held liable for torture under the TVPA.

:: View PDF

News & Events

  • Fall Submissions Open – Headnotes

    The Minnesota Law Review: Headnotes fall submissions period is open. For more information, please visit our submissions page. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Vol. 97 Piece Quoted in Mother Jones Article

    A recent Mother Jones article predicting how the Roberts Court would resolve King v. Burwell draws on How Business Fares in the Supreme Court from Volume 97. You can read the article here. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Welcome to De Novo

    For nearly one hundred years, the Minnesota Law Review has been a leader amongst academic legal publications. When Professor Henry J. Fletcher launched the journal in 1917, his goal was simple. It was to “contribute a little something to the systematic growth of the whole law.” Since then, the Law [...]

  • Minnesota Law Review Alum Remembered 45 Years After Death

    Minnesota Law Review alumnus Tom Cranna was honored at the Annual Banquet this Spring, 45 years after his death. Mr. Cranna was remembered for his contributions to the journal, the school, and the positive impact he had on his family and friends. The Devil’s Lake Journal published a memorial which [...]

  • Follow MLR on Twitter!

    The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce that we are now on Twitter. Follow us @MinnesotaLawRev for information and updates concerning the petition period and deadlines, the opening and closing of article submissions, our 2014 Symposium: Offenders in the Community, and all other news concerning our authors and publications. [...]

Newsletter

cforms contact form by delicious:days