Monday, May 14, 2018
Since the Supreme Court’s opinion in Jesner v. Arab Bank was issued on April 24, the HRAH blog has published four pieces analyzing the opinion and its implications. This is our most recent “Scholarly Voices” series, a periodic effort to step back and bring a variety of voices to the fore in analyzing important human rights developments. Other Scholarly Voices mini-symposia have reflected on the first year of the Trump Administration, the Administration’s “no show” at the InterAmerican Commission, and other timely topics where scholars can offer insights.
The Jesner series began with Rooting for the Home Team, Jena Martin’s stark assessment of the Court’s willingness to apply American Exceptionalism to protect corporations over humans. Beth Stephens followed with a catalog of “Five Things I Don’t Like about the Jesner Opinion,” putting the Court’s decision into the larger context of cutbacks to civil litigation and treatment of corporations. Margaret Drew continued the theme of corporate impunity, noting the tensions between Citizens United and Jesner, in her piece Corporations: What Art Thou? Finally, in Whither Human Rights Litigation After Jesner?, Christopher Whytock offers thoughts about future avenues for human rights litigation in the U.S., particularly in state courts.