Conflicts of interest on the U.S. Supreme Court prevented four of nine justices from ruling on an important apartheid case yesterday, forcing more than 30 major corporations to defend themselves against lawsuits accusing them of supporting South Africa’s former racial policies.
Three of the judges hold shares in companies named in the lawsuits, and the son of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is a banker for one of the companies.
They removed themselves from the case, leaving the bench one justice short of a quorum.
At least six of the Supreme Court’s nine justices are required by law to rule on an appealed case. So the Supreme Court let stand a federal appeals court decision that said companies that invested in South Africa between 1948 and 1994 could be sued if their investments promoted apartheid policies.
The companies argued that the lower court expanded the U.S. Alien Tort Statute beyond its original meaning, which was to allow U.S. courts to hear cases by aliens involving violations of international law. They said the ruling set a dangerous precedent that would invite lawsuits against international corporations.
The people suing the companies, who include South Africans who claim to have been tortured or have family members who were killed, are seeking more than $400 billion in compensation.
Both the U.S. and South African governments urged the Supreme Court to strike down the lawsuit, saying it would interfere with South African reconciliation and create foreign-policy entanglements.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court said it affirmed the decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York “because the court lacks a quorum.”
The case suggests more conflicts of interest could emerge on the Supreme Court, where seven of the justices are millionaires, according to annual financial disclosure reports.
The justices who removed themselves from the apartheid case because of their stock investments were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
The companies being sued include Hewlett-Packard Co., whose stock is owned by Chief Justice Roberts; Exxon Mobil Corp. and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., whose stocks are owned by Justice Alito; and Bank of America Corp., International Business Machines Corp., Colgate-Palmolive Co. and Nestle SA, whose stocks are owned by Justice Breyer.
Those three justices could have stayed on the case if they had sold the affected investments. Chief Justice Roberts has done that on two occasions to return to cases from which he initially stepped aside.
On another occasion this term, Chief Justice Roberts sat out a case involving Pfizer Inc., resulting in a 4-4 tie that allowed a lawsuit against the drug company to proceed and left unresolved the issue the court had agreed to settle.
Only Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Kennedy reported assets worth less than $1 million in 2007, not including their homes. They are scheduled to update their financial disclosures next month.
Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were listed as the wealthiest in the disclosure statements. Each holds assets between $5 million and $25 million.
Justice Souter’s biggest investment was Chittenden Corp., a New England financial services company, worth at least $5 million. He earned between $100,000 and $1 million in dividends on the investment in 2006.
Justice Ginsburg holds two retirement accounts worth $1 million to $5 million. Her husband’s law practice was listed as worth $1 million to $5 million.
Chief Justice Roberts listed assets from $2.4 million to $6.2 million that include stock holdings in media, bank and technology companies.
Although justices commonly remove — or recuse — themselves from cases for conflicts of interest, legal analysts say it is unusual for a lower court case to be affirmed because too few Supreme Court justices are able to vote on it.
Conflicts of interest are defined by the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct. It says judges must disqualify themselves “in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
The code cites “economic interests” as an example.
“I think it’s been understood for a while that a personal financial interest in a company whose case is being considered raises a serious issue for potential recusal,” said Philip Schrag, a Georgetown University Law Center professor and co-author of a book on legal ethics. “I don’t think this breaks new ground.”
The case is American Isuzu Motors v. Ntsebeza, 07-919.
A CONFLICT OF INTEREST Issues that disqualified Supreme Court justices from ruling in the South Africa apartheid case against major corporations: Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. owns stock in Hewlett-Packard Co. Justice Stephen Breyer owns stock in Bank of America Corp., IBM Corp., Colgate-Palmolive Co. and Nestle SA Justice Samuel Alito owns stock in Exxon Mobil Corp. and Bristol- Myers Squibb Co. Justice Anthony Kennedy son works for Credit Suisse Group Source: U.S. Supreme Court annual financial disclosure forms
Please read our comment policy before commenting.