Homosexuals of all types must be dancing this Fourth of July celebrating the invalidation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in a 5-4 decision of the usual justices. Swing Justice Kennedy wrote the Court's decision which is tinted with the conservative majority's states' rights views. But this decision is not very significant when one considers the corporatist line the court continues to uphold in several decisions handed down at the end of this term. Over the past two terms the Court has sided with the Chamber of Commerce in 88% of its cases since 2006 (21-3) (70% before Alito joined). The Roberts court is the most pro-corporate in six decades, and the Chamber of Commerce was the most litigious private organization before the Court during a three year study period of May 2009 to August 2012.In a series of decisions the Court has restricted the rights of individuals to sue corporations and restricted the ability of the federal government to regulate their economic activities. In a case with significant impact on all class action suits against corporations, Comcast v. Behrend, the Court denied consumers the opportunity to sue against alleged monopolistic practices. The Court, based on its new precedent wiped out an appeals court ruling in favor of consumers who bought smelly Whirlpool front-load washing machines. Legal observers say the Behrend decision is as destructive of the class action mechanism as the 2011 decision in the Wall-Mart gender discrimination case. Workers faced with discriminatory employers or on the job harassment will also face more difficulties bringing lawsuits because of conservative majority decisions handed down this term.
The Court closed the door on a 200 year old law, the Alien Tort Statute, that permitted aliens to seek redress of human rights violations committed abroad against "the laws of nations" in US courts. Nigerian plaintiffs sought to hold Royal Dutch Shell responsible for aiding and abetting torture, arbitrary killings and indefinite detention. Roberts' decison in this case effectively limits the statute's application to modern piracy or "a handful of heinous actions" by restoring the presumption of extraterritoriality especially as applied to the activities of international corporations, American or otherwise.
 |
| AP: Justice Alito |