Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Feb 28, 2012
|Apr 18, 2012||9-0||Sotomayor||OT 2011|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C. serves as counsel to the petitioners in this case.
Holding: As it is used in the Torture Victim Protection Act, the term “individual” encompasses only natural persons and therefore does not impose liability on organizations.
Plain English Summary:
Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on April 18, 2012. Justice Scalia did not join the opinion as to Part III-B. Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion.
- In Plain English: Recent decisions (Amy Howe)
- Opinion analysis: Anti-torture law given narrow scope (UPDATED) (Lyle Denniston)
- Kiobel to be expanded and reargued (Lyle Denniston)
- Argument recap: Downhill, from the start (Lyle Denniston)
- SCOTUS for law students (sponsored by Bloomberg Law): Torture and jurisdiction (Stephen Wermiel)
- Argument preview: Human rights abuses and the law (Lyle Denniston)
- Plain English: Recent grants (Amy Howe)
- Court to rule on suing corporations and PLO (UPDATED) (Lyle Denniston)
Briefs and DocumentsMerits Briefs for the Petitioners
- Brief of Yale Law School Center for Global Legal Challenges
- Brief for Former U.S. Senator Arlen Specter et al.
- Brief for Larry Bowoto et al.
- Brief for Professor Juan Méndez, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture
- Brief for Nuremberg Scholars Omer Bartov et al.
- Brief for Joseph E. Stiglitz