Alliance for Justice Finds End of Supreme Court Term Shows the "Corporate Court" Is Still Open for Business

Washington, D.C., June 27, 2011—“It has been another good year for corporations at the U.S. Supreme Court and another bad one for everyday Americans seeking fairness and justice in the American legal system,” according Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice, commenting on the end of the 2010-11 U.S. Supreme Court term.

The five justices who make up the pro-corporate majority – Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito –once again crafted decisions that insulate corporations from accountability for conduct that discriminates against or injures consumers, employees, women, people of color, and victims of harmful products or other corporate misconduct.

Aron further commented that, “This term continues the relentless effort by the five conservative justices to reshape the law to benefit and protect corporate interests. In case after case, the system has been rigged to give business interests every possible advantage when they are challenged by everyday Americans seeking justice or fighting corporate abuse or malfeasance. As they have since the John Roberts-led majority solidified in 2006, these justices are doing everything in their power to limit access to the courts and set up overwhelming legal hurdles for those who seek to band together to fight broad discrimination or abuse. In the term that just ended, the decisions by the narrow majority once again blatantly ignore the clear intent of long-established statutes, rules and regulations to arrive at a result favorable to corporate interests. The Corporate Court is clearly still open for business, leaving everybody else on the outside looking in at powerful interests increasingly in control of the law and the courts.”

Five cases epitomize the term’s business orientation and will have broad implications and wide-ranging effects:

• In Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the Corporate Court’s 5-4 majority created new, impossible-to-hurdle thresholds for women or people of color to prove widespread gender or racial discrimination in the workplace. The case is already rippling through the legal system. African-American, Latino, and female employees alleging discrimination against Best Buy were forced to agree to an early settlement, fearing the impacts of an adverse ruling in the Wal-Mart case. A lawsuit against Costco was held up waiting for the decision, and will certainly face much tougher sledding, in spite of strong statistical evidence favoring the plaintiffs. Wal-Mart may also threaten the viability of pending gender discrimination class-actions against Goldman Sachs, Toshiba, and Cigna, as well as those aimed at mortgage lenders accused of defrauding borrowers.
• In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the 5-4 majority gave corporations the ability to cheat consumers or discriminate against workers on a massive scale, knowing that even if they are caught, they can only be held accountable one consumer or worker at a time. As with Wal-Mart, the AT&T decision is already having significant real-world effects. For example, one week after AT&T, a federal judge in California forced victims of a debt collector to pursue federal claims in individual arbitrations. Similarly, victims of a sham credit-counseling service in Florida were forced to pursue state and federal claims individually, and a California class action seeking injunctive relief against T-Mobile for misbranding its “4G” smartphones was dismissed. In Colorado, former students of a for-profit college are being forced to individually arbitrate the school’s misrepresentations of its accreditation, graduate job and salary prospects, and the costs of education. Because of the AT&T ruling, there will be far fewer limits to the ability of corporations to defraud consumers and employees with virtual impunity. 
• In Janus Capital Group v. First Derivative Traders, again by a 5-4 vote, the Court opened a wide new loophole for deep-pocketed corporations to defraud investors through misleading statements and shunt responsibility onto unsuspecting and assetless subsidiaries.
• In PLIVA v. Mensing, the 5-4 majority let manufacturers of generic drugs, which comprise 75 percent of the market, off the hook for inadequate warning labels, even for a drug which has caused irreversible neurological disorders as a side effect.
• In Schindler Elevator Corp. v. U.S., the five conservative justices protected companies that defraud the federal government by narrowing the types of suits whistleblowers can bring to recoup corporate ill-gotten gains. 

These cases and others decided during this term continue to advance the pro-corporate agenda of the five conservative justices by aggressively reinterpreting federal statutes, sharply limiting the ability of people wronged by large businesses to band together to seek justice, and immunizing corporate wrongdoing.

*   *   *

A downloadable compilation (PDF) of the major 2010-2011 business-oriented cases can be found at http://www.afj.org/connect-with-the-issues/the-corporate-court/corporate-court-2010-2011-docket.pdf

Information about the cases referenced above, as well as many others decided in this term, can be found at http://www.afj.org/connect-with-the-issues/the-corporate-court/

*   *   * 

Alliance for Justice is a national association of over 100 organizations, representing a broad array of groups committed to progressive values and the creation of an equitable, just, and free society. AFJ works to ensure that the federal judiciary advances core constitutional values, preserves human rights and unfettered access to the courts, and adheres to the even-handed administration of justice for all Americans. It is the leading expert on the legal framework for nonprofit advocacy efforts, providing definitive information, resources, and technical assistance that encourages organizations and their funding partners to fully exercise their right to be active participants in the democratic process. AFJ is based in Washington, D.C.