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

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1]F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]