Domestic, United States of America Gisela Sin Gomiz Domestic, United States of America Gisela Sin Gomiz

Boimah FLOMO, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. FIRESTONE NATURAL RUBBER CO., LLC, Defendant–Appellee, No. 10–3675 - United States of America

Background

The applicants, a group of Liberian children, sued Firestone National Rubber Company (the Defendant) under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350. They alleged use of hazardous child labour in a rubber plantation which the defendant was operating in Liberia in violation of customary international law. The district court granted summary judgment in favour of the defendant. The applicants appealed the judgment. Green Advocates, a Liberian non-profit organisation, acted as local liaison in Liberia during the handling of this case.

Reasoning

The Court rejected the defendant’s argument that it was immune from liability under the Alien Tort Statute because it was a limited liability company. The Court considered relevant precedent, which held to the contrary, and noted that the failure to prosecute corporations for violations of customary international law in the past did not mean there was no norm forbidding them to commit such violations. The Court also highlighted the deterrent value of corporate liability, since it raises the expected costs of misconduct. However, the Court acknowledged the scope of corporate liability should be limited to cases in which violations are directed, encouraged or condoned at the corporate defendant’s decision-making level.

However, the Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, as it found that the applicants failed to furnish concrete evidence of the customs and practices of States to show that States have a legal obligation to impose liability on employers of child labour. In particular, the Court stated that the three primary international conventions cited by the applicants as evidence of an international norm against child labour were vague and/or did not give rise to enforceable obligations. Additionally, the court noted that the working conditions at the Firestone plantation “while bad, were not that bad”, and that the applicants hadn’t presented “evidence that would create a triable issue of whether they [were] that bad”.

Remedy

The Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. The Court found that a corporation can be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute. However, applicants failed to present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of whether defendant violated customary international law.

Role of children

The applicants in this case were a group of 23 Liberian children working in the Firestone’s rubber plantation, who filed a suit with the assistance of their adult legal guardians. The ages of the children ranged from 5 to 18.

Enforcement and other outcomes

The case made a significant difference to Firestone's plantation workers. Shortly after it was filed, and due extensive media coverage, Firestone took steps to reduce child labour on the plantation and to improve schools in the area. The workers formed an independent union, the Firestone Agricultural Workers Union of Liberia (“FAWUL”), to negotiate a new contract with the company. In the following years, the conditions of these workers generally improved.

Significance of the case from a CRSL perspective

This case established that corporations can be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute for violations of customary international law, including laws pertaining to children’s rights, and offered insights on what makes a child labour claim viable under the Alien Tort Statute. This outcome has several potential benefits for future CRSL in this area, including notably that future plaintiffs will not have the burden of responding to the defence that corporation are immune from liability under this statute.

Additionally, this is the first case in which an applicant’s claims satisfied the jurisdictional requirement of the Alien Tort Statute (See Bergman, 2011). The district court rejected the Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that its jurisdiction to hear the case stemmed from the fact that the applicants alleged an arguable violation of the law of nations and did not depend on whether the Alien Tort Statute created a private cause of action for violations of children’s rights. This was important because it means that it should be sufficient that future CRSL plaintiffs are able to allege an arguable violation of the law of nations for the courts to have the competence to hear a case.

Country

United States of America

Forum and date of decision

United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

July 11, 2011

CRC provisions and other international law provisions/sources

Domestic law provisions

Related information

The applicants:

Terrence P. Collingsworth and Christian Levesque, Attorney, Conrad Scherer, LLP, Washington, DC.

Paul Hoffman, Attorney, Schon-burn Desimone Seplow Harris Hoffman Harrison, LLP, Venice, CA.

The defendants:

Brian J. Murray (argued), Attorney, Jones Day, Chicago, IL.

List of amicus curiae:

Case documents

Amicus curiae briefs:

Secondary documents

Bergman, Jessica (2011) “The Alien Tort Statute and Flomo v. Firestone Natural Rubber Company: The Key to Change in Global Child Labor Practices?”, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies: Vol. 18: Iss. 1, Article 18.

IndustriAll Global Union, “Liberian Unions Demand Better Working Conditions at Firestone Rubber Plantations” (IndustriALL August 23, 2018), accessed October 31, 2022

 Metlitsky, Anton (2013) “The Alien Tort Statute, Separation of Powers, and the Limits of Federal-Common-Law Causes of Action,” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law: Vol. 52: Iss. 53.

Lowe A, (2013) “Customary International Law and International Human Rights Law: A Proposal for The Expansion of the Alien Tort Statute,” Vol. 23: Iss. 3.

International Rights Advocates, “Flomo, Et Al. v. Firestone Natural Rubber Company” (IRAadvocates), accessed October 26, 2022

Read More
Domestic, United States of America Gisela Sin Gomiz Domestic, United States of America Gisela Sin Gomiz

Miller v Alabama; Jackson v. Hobbs No. 10–9646 (and No. 10–9647) US Supreme Court 25 June 2012 - United States of America

Background

Two 14-year-olds were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The relevant state sentencing regimes mandated these sentences and the sentencing judges had no discretion to impose a different punishment.

In both cases, the children unsuccessfully appealed the severity of the sentences to the relevant superior state court, being the Arkansas Supreme Court and Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, and the sentences were upheld. Amici Curiae subsequently applied on behalf of the children for the United States Supreme Court to review the decisions of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Alabama Court of Criminal Appeal.

Reasoning

The court held that mandatory sentencing legislative schemes which require children convicted of homicide to be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole were unconstitutional as they breached the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

In considering mandatory schemes, the court examined the fundamental principles of sentencing and held, first, that the case for retribution was not as strong with children as with adults because retribution related to blameworthiness. Second, that the same characteristics that made children less culpable than adults (immaturity, recklessness and impetuosity) made them less likely to consider potential punishments prior to an act and so undermine the deterrent effect of sentences. Third, that sentence of life without the possibility of parole removed any scope for rehabilitation.

Such mandatory sentencing schemes were not considering critical factors relating to children and youth (“immaturity”, “irresponsibility”, “impetuosity”, “recklessness” (pp. 15, 17) and failure to appreciate risks and consequences) when determining if the harshest term of imprisonment was proportional to “the distinctive attributes of youth” (p.9) and to their diminished culpability.

Remedy

The court reversed the judgments of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals and returned the cases for further proceedings for re-sentencing not inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.

Role of children

The applicants were both children at the time they were sentenced, though they were adults at the time that the Supreme Court considered their cases.

Enforcement and other outcomes

At the time of the judgment, more than half of the states in the United States had mandatory sentencing schemes which required judges to sentence children to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Following the judgment, the majority of these States have brought their sentencing schemes in line with the Supreme Court’s’s ruling.

It is important to note that certain states have since abolished mandatory life sentences without the opportunity of parole but still require mandatory sentences for the duration of a child’s meaningful life expectancy without the opportunity of parole.

Significance of the case from a CRSL perspective

The case abolished mandatory life imprisonment sentences without the possibility of parole for children convicted of homicide in the United States. It confirmed that children are different to adults and judges should retain the ability to take a child’s inherent mitigating factors into account when sentencing them for homicide.

The case built on previous decisions of the Supreme Court relating to the Eighth Amendment and challenging the death penalty and the sentence to life without parole (LWOP), such as Roper v Simmons, Graham v Florida and Montgomery v Louisiana. The court had previously prohibited a sentence of life without parole for a child who committed a non-homicidal offence. However, many US states still permit life sentences for children without parole for homicide – it just is not mandated. Further, many US States still permit what are considered to be “de facto life sentences” for children (50 plus years) which arguably contravenes the Court’s position in this case. Alongside the judicial processes, campaigns were conducted by civil society organisations, such as the Campaign for Fair Sentencing of Youth, which was responsible for lobbying and media work.

Country

United States of America

Forum and date of decision

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25 , 2012

CRC provisions and other international law provisions/sources

Not applicable. The decision considers domestic law provisions only.

Domestic law provisions

Related information

For the applicants:

For the Respondent:

List of amicus curiae:

The amicus curiae comprised 67 organisations and 25 individuals as set out in the Appendix of the Amicus Curia Brief.

In support of petitioners:

In support of respondents:

Case documents

Miller v Alabama; Jackson v. Hobbs No. 10–9646 (and No. 10–9647) US Supreme Court 25 June 2012

     Amicus Curiae: 

Secondary documents

Equal justice initiative (EJI), 'Miller v Alabama EJI won a landmark ruling from the Supreme Court striking down mandatory death-in-prison sentences for children' (Equal Justice Initiative (EJI)) <https://eji.org/cases/miller-v-alabama/#:~:text=EJI%20won%20a%20landmark%20ruling,its%20companion%20case%2C%20Jackson%20v. > accessed 11 May 2021

Marshall M, 'Miller V. Alabama And The Problem Of Prediction' (2019) 119 Columbia Law Review <https://columbialawreview.org/content/miller-v-alabama-and-the-problem-of-prediction/ >

Dharmavarapu P, 'Categorically Redeeming Graham V Florida And Miller V Alabama: Why The Eighth Amendment Guarantees All Juvenile Defendants A Constitutional Right To A Parole Hearing | The University Of Chicago Law Review' (Lawreview.uchicago.edu) <https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/publication/categorically-redeeming-graham-v-florida-and-miller-v-alabama-why-eighth-amendment > accessed 21 February 2022

L. Piel J, 'Term-Of-Years Sentences Since Miller V. Alabama' (2020) 50 Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online <http://jaapl.org/content/early/2020/01/24/JAAPL.003918-20 > accessed 28 February 2022

'The Aftermath Of Miller V. Alabama: Hope For Those Sentenced To Life Without Possibility Of Parole For Juvenile Crimes - National Center For Youth Law' (National Center for Youth Law) <https://youthlaw.org/publication/the-aftermath-of-miller-v-alabama-hope-for-those-sentenced-to-life-without-possibility-of-parole-for-juvenile-crimes/ > accessed 28 February 2022

A. Stevenson B, and F. Stinneford J, 'Interpretation: The Eighth Amendment | The National Constitution Center' (Constitutioncenter.org) <https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-viii/clauses/103 > accessed 28 February 2022

H. Boone B, 'Treating Adults Like Children: Re-Sentencing Adult Juvenile Lifers After Miller V. Alabama' [2015] Minnesota Law Review <https://minnesotalawreview.org/article/treating-adults-children-re-sentencing-adult-juvenile-lifers-miller-v-alabama/ > accessed 28 February 2022

Read More
United States of America, Domestic Gisela Sin Gomiz United States of America, Domestic Gisela Sin Gomiz

Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center v. Christopher Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), No. 03-633 - United States of America

Background

Simmons was convicted of committing a murder carried out when he was 17 years old and sentenced to death when he was 18. The case centred on whether the death penalty constituted cruel or unusual punishment as prohibited under the Eight Amendment to the United States Constitution when applied for offences committed while under the age of 18.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court held that the prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishments” (543 U.S. 551, 6 (2005)) must be interpreted according to its text, history, tradition, purpose and the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society. Citing earlier case-law (Atkins v. Virginia), the court determined that society views children as “categorically less culpable than the average adult criminal” (543 U.S. 551, 13 (2005)). Therefore, the Eighth Amendment requires the rejection of the imposition of the death penalty for offences committed under the age of 18.

The Court relied on three general differences between children and adults in its reasoning. First, the acts of children are “less morally reprehensible” (543 U.S. 551, 15-16 (2005)) than adults because of their level of maturity. Second, children are more susceptible to negative influences and pressure. Third, the character of children is not as fully formed as that of an adult.

The Court held that “when a juvenile offender commits a heinous crime, the State can exact forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties, but the State cannot extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity” (543 U.S. 551, 4 (2005)).

Remedy

The Supreme Court declared that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty for offences committed by persons who were under the age of 18 at the time when the crime was committed. The decision of the Missouri Supreme Court (State ex Rel. Simmons v. Roper, 112 S.W.3d 397 (Mo. 2003)) to set aside Simmons’ death sentence in favour of life imprisonment without eligibility for release was affirmed.

Role of children

The plaintiff was sentenced to death at age 18 for committing a murder at age 17 and filed the petition for state post-conviction relief.

Enforcement and other outcomes

The death penalty was immediately abolished for all offences committed by persons under the age of 18 within the United States. The decision rendered unconstitutional the legislation of 19 states at that time, of which six states had carried out executions since 1989 for crimes committed as children. The court order also cancelled the death sentences of approximately 70 people for crimes they committed while younger than age 18, leading to resentencing.

Significance of the case from a CRSL perspective

This case abolished the death penalty for offences committed under the age of 18 overturning the sentences of every person in the United States serving such a sentence and prohibiting any jurisdiction within the country imposing the sentence. The judgment also paved the way for future strategic litigation before the United States Supreme Court against sentences of life without the possibility of parole for offences committed by children, which built on the reasoning of the Court in applying the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The American Psychological Association intervened, introducing evidence of the psychological development of children throughout adolescence, which became an important part of future US litigation relating to the sentencing of children. Litigants also cited the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in their submissions, which was explicitly cited in the Court’s judgment (543 U.S. 551, 22 (2005)), despite the fact that the United States has not ratified the CRC. This development laid the foundation for the use of the CRC in future cases before the Supreme Court, recognising that the affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations highlights the relevance of those same rights within the U.S. legal system.

Country

United States of America

Forum and date of decision

Supreme Court of the United States

1 March 2005

CRC provisions and other international law provisions

Domestic law provisions

Related information

For the petitioner:

  • Stephen D. Hake, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, Missouri

For the Respondent:

  • Jennifer Herndon

Amici curiae:

Further Information on the representation of Christopher Simmons

Case documents

Link to the decision Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center v. Christopher Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), No. 03-633

Secondary documents

Read More