Supreme Court: torture law applies only to people

WASHINGTON Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:46pm EDT

Television news networks report live on the sidewalk during the third and final day of legal arguments over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at the Supreme Court in Washington, March 28, 2012. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Television news networks report live on the sidewalk during the third and final day of legal arguments over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at the Supreme Court in Washington, March 28, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Palestinian Authority and PLO cannot be sued under a 1991 U.S. victim protection law over the alleged torture of an American in a West Bank prison, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday, holding that the law only applies to individuals.

The justices unanimously agreed with the Obama administration that the Torture Victim Protection Act allowed civil lawsuits in U.S. courts only against a person who had engaged in torture or killing, not against groups.

The ruling involved a lawsuit against the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority by the widow and sons of a naturalized U.S. citizen, the Palestinian-born Azzam Rahim, who was raised in the West Bank.

The lawsuit alleged he was tortured and killed in 1995 at a prison in Jericho while in the custody of Palestinian intelligence officers. The PLO has denied the allegations.

A U.S. appeals court dismissed the lawsuit and ruled that the law adopted by Congress said that it only applied to individuals, not political groups or other organizations. The Supreme Court agreed.

"We hold that the term 'individual" as used in the act encompasses only natural persons. Consequently, the act does not impose liability against organizations," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the court's opinion. She added that Congress made that clear in the law's text.

Sotomayor said the ordinary, everyday meaning of individual referred to a human being, not an organization, and Congress gave no indication it intended anything different.

She said the arguments by those who brought the lawsuit were not persuasive. Their lawyers argued that precluding liability by organizations may foreclose effective remedies for victims and their relatives. But Sotomayor said Congress appeared well aware of the limits it had placed on the lawsuits.

In late February, the court heard arguments in the case and in a related case dealing with whether corporations or only individuals can be sued under a different U.S. law, the Alien Tort Statute that dates to the 18th century.

The justices in March decided to hear arguments in their new term starting in October on a broader question in the other case - whether U.S. courts even have jurisdiction to hear lawsuits against multinational corporations or others for alleged human rights abuses committed abroad.

The Supreme Court case is Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, No. 11-88.

(Editing by Doina Chiacu)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (3)
bobber1956 wrote:
If two, three, a group of people get together and murder someone they are ALL guilty of that crime. Not so with torture? There is an inconsistency here that is simply inhumane. That would have been my argument along with, “When anyone’s liberty suffers everyone’s liberty suffers”.

Apr 18, 2012 12:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Luckily, PLO and Palestinian Authority or not incorporate. If the were, then they would be considered people, then they would be in trouble. What a tangled web we weave, Roberts.

Apr 18, 2012 4:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 if you open that door lots of people can sue Israel…

Apr 18, 2012 4:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.