Special AFJ Reports

The 2012-13 Supreme Court Docket

In recent years, the Supreme Court has decided numerous highly controversial cases, often by 5-4 margins, which have served to roll back the clock on decades of progressive jurisprudence. This term could bring more of the same. Read More »

AFJ Comments to CFPB on Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreement

AFJ Comments to CFPB on Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreement (June 2012) Read More »

AT&T Aftermath: How the Supreme Court Ensured Companies Can Cheat and Get Away With It

In the landmark case of AT&T Mobility v. Concepción, the Roberts Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act’s favorable treatment of contractual arbitration clauses preempts state laws aimed at protecting consumers and employees from unconscionable class action waivers. As a result, AT&T was able to avoid legal and financial consequences of defrauding thousands of customers out of $30 for supposedly “free” phones, simply by including a provision in their service contracts that mandated arbitration and forbade class actions. This ruling left customers with no recourse to recover their money from the company, because no one could reasonably be expected to bring an individual claim to recoup $30. And, as widely feared, the case has already had wide-ranging impact on the ability of consumers and employees to vindicate their rights in court and recoup ill-gotten gains from companies. Alliance for Justice has been tracking cases in the aftermath of AT&T v. Concepción, in which consumers, employees and other individuals have been forced into arbitration and denied the right to proceed collectively against powerful corporations. Read More »

Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum

The Supreme Court is poised to make a statement on the civil liability of corporations that participate in the commission of atrocities in the pursuit of profit. Read More »

2010-11 Overreach Report: How the Corporate Court Bends the Law to Favor the 1%

It has been well documented that the “Corporate Court” consistently pursues a political agenda that favors powerful corporate interests and the wealthy at the expense of everyday Americans. What is less well known is that in order to reach these pro-corporate outcomes, certain justices have proven strikingly willing to engage in judicial activism by overreaching and twisting the law. The Supreme Court‟s pro-corporate shift is the result of a decades-long campaign by special interest groups to elevate corporate profits and private wealth over individual rights and personal freedoms. Since John Roberts became Chief Justice in 2005, the Supreme Court has demonstrated a readiness to do whatever it takes to interpret the law in a way that protects powerful interests. Read More »

Arbitration Activism: How the Corporate Court Helps Business Evade Our Civil Justice System

Under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court has radically rewritten the law governing arbitration, advancing an agenda to shield corporations form liability at the expense of the rights of everyday Americans. In a perfect world, arbitration works as a simplified system for resolving legal disputes under the mutual agreement of those involved. However, the Supreme Court in recent years has allowed big businesses to abuse forced arbitration contracts, building up a privatized legal system that robs everyday Americans of the chance to be heard by an impartial judge and jury. Read More »

AFJ Unveils “Worst Decisions of the 2010-11 Corporate Court Term”

This was another very good year for corporate interests at the U.S. Supreme Court, and a very bad one for Americans seeking fairness and justice. The Corporate Court under Chief Justice John Roberts is radically reshaping the law to insulate corporations from accountability for conduct that discriminates against, defrauds, or injures everyday Americans. In several cases, the five conservative justices were able to force those suffering from corporate malfeasance into arenas where they have to face powerful corporate opponents alone, while ensuring that big business doesn‘t have to face unified groups of those it has harmed. Collectively, these decisions are worth tens of billions of dollars to corporate bottom lines. Read More »

The Supreme Court's 2011-12 Term Preview

As the October 3 opening of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2011-12 term approaches, there are no cases yet on the docket to rival last term’s decisions in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion or Wal-Mart v. Dukes, which together threaten to end the ability of consumers and employees to band together to fight corporate wrongdoing. The Court’s docket is just over half full at this point, with 45 cases accepted out of the 80 or so the Court has typically heard under Chief Justice John Roberts. Described below are some of the cases taken this term by the Supreme Court. Read More »

Douglas v Independent Living Center

For two centuries the Supreme Court has allowed individuals to file lawsuits under the Supremacy Clause to stop states from engaging in actions that run contrary to federal law. In one of the key cases of this term – Douglas v. Independent Living Center of So. Cal. – this power to vindicate federal policies that benefit everyday Americans could be stripped away by the Supreme Court. On October 3, the first day of the 2011-12 term, the Court will consider whether Medicaid beneficiaries can sue the State of California to force it to pay rates for medical services sufficient to meet federal requirements. California’s violation of the Medicaid statute has been established; the only issue is whether individuals and organizations can bring their lawsuits under the Supremacy Clause to prevent the illegal cuts from taking effect. Read More »

The Corporate 2010-11 End-of-Year Report

This was another very good year for corporate interests at the U.S. Supreme Court, and a very bad one for Americans seeking fairness and justice. The Corporate Court under Chief Justice John Roberts is radically reshaping the law to insulate corporations from accountability for conduct that discriminates against, defrauds, or injures everyday Americans. In several cases, the five conservative justices were able to force those suffering from corporate malfeasance into arenas where they have to face powerful corporate opponents alone, while ensuring that big business doesn’t have to face unified groups of those it has harmed. Collectively, these decisions are worth tens of billions of dollars to corporate bottom lines. Read More »