Shell’s Activities in Nigeria and Kiobel’s Underlying Claims

Posted on by
Reply

There were a million things I wanted to write about after oral arguments this morning in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, but I’ve forgotten half of them by now, and I’m too tired to say everything I wanted to about the rest.

So this post is not about the whether the ATS provides jurisdiction for the Kiobel plaintiffs’ claim; instead, it’s about the underlying claim itself.

It was made unexpectedly clear to me today that, despite all of my interest in ATS litigation as an academic question, I have little idea about any of the underlying events that gave rise to those cases. After all, most ATS cases get kicked out at the Motion to Dismiss stage, if not sooner — and facts do not matter at that point, beyond what is alleged in the complaint, so why bother?

But this morning I caught a cab to the Supreme Court for the Kiobel arguments, and after debating the relative merits of Papa John’s pizza vs. Pizza Hut pizza with the cab driver, he asked about what I was going to see at the Court. So I told him it was a case about international law, for claims that had been brought against Shell for its activities in Nigeria.

And he said, “Oh, I know about that. I’m from Ogoniland, the oil companies have done a lot of things there too.”

Well, damn. It turned out he’d been born in Ogoniland, although he’d moved with his parents to somewhere in eastern Nigeria when he was young, before later moving to the U.S. as an adult. He hadn’t heard about the Kiobel case, though, or at least not this particular version of the litigation against Shell, but he seemed to know just about everything there was to know regarding Kiobel’s underlying events.

He talked about the Abacha regime, and what Nigeria had been like under him, and also about Ken Saro-Wiwa, and the books Saro-Wiwa had written, and what his death had meant. His summary of the events surrounding the execution of the Ogoni Nine was bleak: “Saro-Wiwa had an education, and he thought things could be changed. So Abacha had to kill him.”

It was hard not to be conscious of the jarring contrast between the cab driver’s summary of the events preceding Kiobel, and the attorneys’ sterile arguments before the Court a short time later regarding the exact same matter. So, instead of reading more about the ATS today, I’ve largely been looking into Shell’s involvement in Nigeria instead. There is far more out there than can possibly be summed up in a single post, but what does exist looks pretty ugly for Shell. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to tell at this point precisely how much culpability Shell bears for the human rights violations in Nigeria under the Abacha regime, as much of the relevant documentation has not been released into the public record. But based on what is publicly available, it seems pretty likely that, regardless of whether Shell was committing human rights abuses, Shell certainly didn’t oppose them, just so long as there was no resulting interference with its business operations.

Consider this memo from a security officer in Rivers State, where Ogoniland is located:

OBSERVATIONS: [...]

  • SHELL OPERATIONS STILL IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS RUTHLESS MILITARY OPERATIONS ARE UNDERTAKEN FOR SMOOTH ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES TO COMMENCE. [...]

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: [...]

  • PRESSURE ON OIL COMPANIES FOR PROMPT REGULAR IMPUTS [sic] AS DISCUSSED.

Ouch. Even if Shell didn’t think it was lining the pockets of Nigerian officials, the Nigerian officials seem to have been expecting a different arrangement. Not to mention, shortly before that memo was written, records show that Shell had paid that same officer an “honorarium”, along with the rest of his squad, for an armed conflict they had engaged in on Shell’s behalf.

Even in incidents where it cannot be shown than Shell was acting as an aider and abettor of human rights abuses, it is obvious that Shell was an opportunistic player who was happy to use the humanitarian crisis for its own benefit, when it was able to do so. For instance, Brian Anderson, a Shell exec and defendant in a prior ATS case, openly promised aid to Ogoni activists in exchange for their cooperation with Shell’s policies. In a memo regarding a conversation with Ken Saro-Wiwa’s brother, after Saro-Wiwa’s arrest and three months before his execution, Anderson wrote the following:

“I offered Owens Wiwa [Saro-Wiwa's brother] the possibility that we would be prepared to put in some humanitarian aid in exchange for the undertaking by his brother to soften their official stance … you will recall the response was a frosty one (martyrdom rather than concessions).”

True, that memo is hardly damning in terms of international law violations, but it goes a long ways towards showing Shell’s general attitude to the human rights abuses that were occurring at the time. Anderson, in his Motion to Dismiss the ATS suit, tried to spin this into a claim that “Mr. Anderson engaged in ‘quiet diplomacy’ to attempt to secure fair treatment and ultimately clemency for Mr. Saro-Wiwa and the rest of the Ogoni Nine,” but the only documentary records from Shell expressing any concern with Saro-Wiwa’s fate are memos discussing the PR implications of his execution.

No wonder Shell fears engaging in American-style discovery. I doubt it would be pretty for them.

-Susan

One Prediction on the Court’s Decision in Kiobel

Posted on by
1

Susan has offered her eight predictions below, but I’ll offer only one: the court will not determine whether corporations may be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute. Instead, the Court will determine that the question of corporate liability is not a question of subject matter jurisdiction and dismiss the rest of the case.

Why? Keep in mind the procedural posture here. This case came out of the district court as a certified appeal unrelated to corporate liability. The Second Circuit only reached that question because it determined corporate liability was a question of subject matter jurisdiction that it had an obligation to address sua sponte. If that decision was improper, then I expect the Supreme Court will simply flip it back to the Second, scold them for reaching an unnecessary issue, and avoid addressing the meat of the argument for now.

Such a decision would fit the Court’s recent tendency to insist that most questions are not questions of subject matter jurisdiction. But it would also be another moment when civil procedure ruins everything. Blech.

-Michael

Eight Predictions on the Court’s Decision in Kiobel

Posted on by
2

With Supreme Court oral arguments on Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum set for tomorrow, it will still be a while yet before the Court releases its opinion. In the meantime, however, here are my predictions on what the outcome of the case will be. Once the Court has actually gotten around to issuing an order, I’ll check back to see if I managed to get any right.

  1. The Kiobel plaintiffs will lose. Either directly on the Supreme Court’s ruling, or after being kicked back to the lower courts with a directive to make findings that spell doom for the plaintiffs, the case against Royal Dutch/Shell will ultimately be dismissed.

  2. But not because of a finding that corporations cannot be liable under the Alien Tort Statute. The ATS was enacted as a mechanism allowing aliens injured by acts violations of international law to recover damages directly from the party who caused them harm, rather than having the U.S. itself make reparations to the victims. The ATS’s concern is not punishment, but in the financial reparation of damages. And, to that end, from the precedent set by prize law, marine torts, and other areas of the law which, in 1789, regularly featured civil claims for violations of the law of nations, there is plenty for the Court to draw from in finding that principles of agency law apply when ascertaining the entity liable for the damages under the ATS. Sosa already made it clear the Court is going to pay close attention to history in making pronouncements on the ATS’s scope and function, and an enquiry into the historical purpose of the statute necessitates a finding of corporate liability.

  3. Instead, Kiobel will be dismissed under principals of comity. If I had to bet, this is the battleground on which Kiobel will be fought. The hubris of allowing a suit brought by aliens against foreign companies for foreign torts will be too much for the Supreme Court to look past, and they will find that international comity requires that U.S. courts decline to exercise jurisdiction in the situation presented. The defendants are corporations based in and operated out of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, and none of their corporate holdings in the U.S. had any direct involvement with Shell’s abhorrent practices in Ogoniland. Allowing suit against these companies in the U.S. is one step short of having U.S. federal courts declare themselves to be an international tribunal competent of adjudicating foreign state’s violations of the law of nations, and the Supreme Court just isn’t going to go there. Bonus prediction: look to see Charming Betsy invoked to explain why the Founders only intended the ATS to be limited to cases with either (a) a sufficient U.S. nexus, whether it be based on territorial concerns or personality jurisdiction, or (b) universal jurisdiction. If Justice Breyer gets his way, part (b) will be expansive and include Really Super Bad Awful Acts. Otherwise, it’ll be limited to piracy and any other crimes in the jurisdictional void.

  4. And possibly for failing to meet exhaustion requirements. The requirement that a plaintiff exhaust all domestic remedies before proceeding in a foreign forum was not a consideration in Sosa, but the Court noted then that “[w]e would certainly consider this requirement in an appropriate case. ” It’s also an issue that cropped up frequently in amici briefs submitted by foreign sovereigns in Kiobel, so the Court may consider it again now, assuming it doesn’t stop once it gets to the comity issue. Although I expect the Kiobel plaintiffs won’t be required to have filed suit in Nigeria in order to meet exhaustion requirements, their failure to pursue suits in the Netherlands and the UK may prove fatal. Particularly so for the UK — the fact that many of the plaintiffs, including the Kiobel family, are themselves UK citizens or residents puts the inappropriateness of a U.S. forum into stark relief.

  5. The Court may also look into the Second Circuit’s decisions regarding aiding-and-abetting liability. The “knowledge and purpose” standard for aiding and abetting liability under the ATS may get some dicta thrown its way, but as Kiobel can be decided without reaching the question of secondary liability, I would guess that it will not feature prominently in the Court’s decision. There may be some discussion, though, about aiding and abetting as a substantive violation vs. agency liability as a theory of recovery, and whether both are decided under domestic law, neither are, or one is but not the other.

  6.  Justice Scalia will author a very terse opinion dissenting in part.  Expect it to feature scathing but memorable descriptions about the purported ridiculousness of the Court exercising jurisdiction under the ATS.

  7. Justice Thomas will join Scalia’s dissent.  True story.

  8. Ultimately, even though the specific plaintiffs in this case will lose, the Court’s decision in Kiobel will strengthen, not weaken, a global regime of corporate liability for international human rights violations. The Court’s opinion will signal its intention to respect both international comity and international human rights. As such, one day, in a different case, with different facts, where the U.S. is a proper forum from which a judgment should be issued, Kiobel will ultimately provide support for a finding of corporate liability for violations of international law. And aside from that, the simple fact that the highest court in the U.S. will have gone on record acknowledging that the activities of corporations are indeed cognizable under international law will be a small but significant step in shaping global norms regarding corporate human rights abuses.


-Susan

Is There an Easy Jurisdictional Answer to Kiobel? (Nope.)

Posted on by
2

Professors Brad Clark and Anthony Bellia have again offered some thoughts on the Alien Tort Statute in advance of the Supreme Court’s arguments in Kiobel. This time, in a short essay to be published in the Georgetown Journal of International Law, the professors suggest that alien-on-alien torts are not covered by the Alien Tort Statute. If this turns out to be true, the professors reason that only U.S. corporate defendants could face suit; such suits wouldn’t need to rely on the ATS because they would likely meet the requirements of diversity jurisdiction. Thus, the issue of corporate liability under the ATS would largely be a moot point.

The professors’ argument is a nifty one, but I think it rests on the faulty premise that the ATS was “originally intended” to cover only suits by aliens against U.S. citizens. The professors distinguish between a tortious act of a U.S. citizen (which they say could be imputed to the United States if it were left unredressed) and a tortious act of an alien (which supposedly “was not directly imputed to the United States under the law of nations if the United States failed to redress it.”)

Of course, the professors’ approach ignores Susan’s excellent discussion of how the original impetus for the ATS might have been an alien-on-alien crime in the United States.

But perhaps more importantly, it ignores the fact that nations have certain obligations related to the acts of persons other than their own citizens. It’s not a simple matter of imputation. In the criminal context, for instance, nations have an obligation not to shield a wrongdoer (whatever his citizenship) who is justly sought by another country. It might be said that the duty arises from the obligation of the “refuge” state to provide a means for the requesting state to vindicate its own interests. Likewise, in the tort context, Nation A has an obligation to provide redress for an injury to a citizen of Nation B because, absent such redress, the wrongdoer might avoid penalty by using Nation A as a (personal) jurisdictional shield. Acting as a shield might then provoke Nation B, who under well-understood principles of diplomatic protection might then take action against Nation A.  Indeed, one authority suggests that “the assault or wrongful treatment of foreigners was one of the major reasons for the incitement of war,” regardless of the nationality of the offender.

The Marbois Incident, which Susan posits led to the ATS in the first place, is actually an excellent example of this idea in practice. When one Frenchman committed a violation of the law of nations against another Frenchman, France obviously had no grounds to be angry towards the United States based on any theory of “imputation.” Rather, France took issue with the United States’ independent failure to provide a remedy; America’s interests were “stand[ing] in the way of French justice.” (To be fair, the perpetrator in the Marbois incident was nominally an American, but it was well-understood that the citizenship was pretextual.)

As Professor William Dodge has also noted, Congress first reacted to the Marbois incident (and another minor incident involving a New York police officer) by recommending to the states that they provide for punishment of violations of the law of nations. This resolution had two critical elements: (a) allowing torts suits to be brought by the alien for the breach of a treaty or international law; and (b) an indemnification provision for harm to the United States caused by the breach. Interestingly, while the indemnification provision applied only to acts committed by United States citizens, there is no similar limitation as to the tort suit portion. Thus, early Congresses seemed to anticipate that any defendant could face liability for a violation of the law of nations.

Let’s also not forget the plain text of the ATS. While the Act obviously provides for an alien plaintiff, it does not define the relevant class of defendants. Complementary state laws, such as one in Connecticut, did indeed define the defendant class, but they defined it broadly: any person whatsoever.

In sum, while I can appreciate the efforts of Professors Clark and Bellia, I think they err in reviving this long dead argument (which Curtis Bradley seems to have been making for some time now).  The puzzle of Kiobel cannot be so easily solved.

-Michael

*The Professors also bring back the old argument that Article III does not anticipate any independent jurisdiction of courts to enforce the law of nations.  I think that point has already been well-addressed before, so I choose not to rehash it here.  A quick read of Filartiga should suffice to address that concern.  See Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876, 885-87 (2d Cir. 1980).

[H/T: Volokh]

Privateer Corporations and Agency Liability: A Response to the Cato Institute’s Amicus Brief in Kiobel

Posted on by
1

The Cato Institute’s amicus brief in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, along with a couple of other amici, repeatedly enact a straw man (straw law?) version of international law as it existed prior to 1789. The ATS, they argue, should be applied in the context of the law of nations of the Enlightment era, which is conceived to have been a limited, formalist creature, with no concern for individuals, dealing only with kings vis-à-vis kings. This idealist version of international law is then contrasted with international law as it exists today, which, in their view, is apparently some kind of bloated, sovereignty-munching leftist obsession with human rights. But while it is the case that international human rights law did not exist prior to the 20th century, Cato’s idealist version of international law ignores the fact that, for many centuries, the law of nations was an omipresent force of domestic legal systems in a manner which today’s domestic courts would scarcely be able to recognize. Domestic enforcement of private claims under international law was far more prevalent in 1789 than it was in 1989.

The Cato amicus’ delicate selections of quotes from Grotius are particularly inept at proving that international law in the 17th century matched Cato’s positivist depictions of it. Cato goes so far as to argue that in Kiobel “the Second Circuit employed an analysis based on the principles enunciated by Grotius,” which is that “under the law of nations corporations are not answerable in tort.” It is exceedingly unclear what precise “principles” Cato is referring to here, because Grotius certainly never made any direct assertions to that end. Grotius fully recognized that sub-sovereign entities were subject to rights and obligations under the law of nations, corporate entities included. In fact, Grotius got his start working as counsel for the Dutch East India Company, defending the company from claims that it had taken Portuguese prizes in violation of international law. His early works in particular were more advocacy pieces than treatises, intended as a defense of the Company’s right to engage in trade in the East Indies, and its powers to wage private war and take prizes.

In On the Law of War and Peace, which Cato quotes from, Grotius repeatedly acknowledges that private entities are capable of violating the law of nations, and can further be personally liable for those violations:
Continue reading →

Could the State Constitutionally Prohibit Dual-Income Marriages?

Posted on by
1

At least in legal academic circles, most of the sturm und drang generated by Perry v. Brown has resulted from disagreement about whether Proposition 8 can legitimately be struck down under the exceedingly deferential rational basis review that, ostensibly, the 9th Circuit applied in deciding the case. Rational basis review is the funhouse mirror standard for evaluating the constitutional permissibility of legislation. Courts do not actually analyze reality under rational review — instead, under a steadfast suspension of disbelief, courts analyze a legal fiction, while squinting sidelong at the challenged legislation and pretending to believe in the white lies and polite excuses provided by the State in its defense. So long as the resulting revisionist version of the law is not itself offensive to the Constitution, the court will pay no mind to the man behind the curtain.

So could the 9th Circuit correctly claim that Proposition 8 doesn’t meet even this lenient standard for constitutionality? Probably not. Even though all of the arguments in favor of Prop 8 are, objectively speaking, entirely asinine, a hefty dose of absurdity has never been a bar to legislation passing muster under rational basis review.

But it’s difficult to place the blame on the 9th for deviating from some idealized “true” rational basis standard when the Supreme Court has repeatedly indicated that we are no longer playing by that same rulebook. “True” rational basis is still applied today to abstract economic or administrative regulations, it is not a dead letter in all respects, but it hasn’t been applied to an intimate associations case since around the time of Bowers v. Hardwick.

There are a number ways in which the Supreme Court could choose to synthesize the line of cases leading up to Perry. The most obvious and straightforward method would be to simply go ahead and recognize sexual orientation as a quasi-suspect class, full stop. But that is not a politically feasible outcome, nor would it necessarily result in the fullest integration of existing precedent.

Looking from Skinner to Griswold, to Eisenstadt, Tremble, Moreno, Lawrence, and now Perry, the formulation that I would suggest is this: there is no legitimate state interest in imposing disabilities on individuals that are members of non-traditional family arrangements because they are members of non-traditional family arrangements. Whether interpreted as recognition of a broadly defined quasi-suspect class or as a fundamental right to be free from illegitimate interference with the choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, the result would be the same. While applying something well below a strict scrutiny evaluation, the U.S. Supreme Court has nevertheless repeatedly recognized that legislation which singles out “non-traditional” family structures for disfavored legal status cannot be rationally based upon (1) the State’s unsupported assertion that the family arrangement it is endorsing is preferable because of the arrangement’s ‘traditional’ character or inherent moral superiority; or (2) a marginal benefit to a legitimate objective that, either due to the de minimis amount of the benefit or its dubious probability, is so disproportionate with the scope of the harm imposed on the disfavored family structure as to compel the conclusion that the surmised benefit is not the actual purpose of the law.

In other words, it looks a fair bit like Perry.

But this is by no means limited to the question of same-sex marriage. The protections applied in Perry are equally applicable to protections enjoyed by heterosexual couples, even if for political reasons it is gays and lesbians that are more often the target of infringing legislation. If rational basis review were truly applicable to legislation in this realm, however, the State would have broad powers to eliminate or prohibit any union it thought not ideal, gay or straight, so long as the prohibition was not based on a class protected by strict scrutiny.

Consider a situation in which the State has enacted a law known as “the Homemaker Act,” which mandates that, henceforth, in order for any marriage to be recognized, or continue to be granted recognition, one partner must act as the primary caretaker of the home while the other partner was the breadwinner. The law would not make any distinctions based on gender — it doesn’t matter whether the wife or the husband stays home to tend the hearth, as long as someone does.

Is there any reason, under the arguments advanced by Prop 8 proponents, that such a law could be constitutionally invalidated? Not that I can see.

After all, this is a well established traditional conception of marriage. The purpose of marriage is to permit couples to engage in an efficient division of labor while assuring a certain minimum degree of security to all parties involved, so that a married couple can have one parent stay home and personally raise children — which is the optimal environment for a child to be raised in — instead of shipping the kids off to day-care to be raised by strangers. By making the working spouse obligated to support the non-working spouse for life, the non-working spouse will have sufficient assurance of future support to be able to forgo any ability of generating income for themselves, and is able to focus all efforts on raising children without the risk of being left destitute. Marriage exists because a spouse that stays home to raise children is thereby put in an extremely vulnerable position — one which the state has mitigated through the series of legal obligations known as marriage.

In other words, if you are in an intimate personal relationship with another person, but both parties are working, you have absolutely no need for the protections offered by marriage. The State has no interest in legally recognizing a couple where both parties have adequate incomes so that neither is reliant upon the other. Although it’s true that dual-income couples can and do reproduce, because neither party has been made financially vulnerable by the arrangement, marriage does not provide any additional benefit to the couple’s ability to raise children, and it is unnecessary to grant privileges where it will do nothing to support the State’s objectives. Moreover, because of “the state’s legitimate interest in promoting the family structure that has proven most likely to foster an optimal environment for the rearing of children,” as one Amici in Perry put it, the State can offer incentives to couples that have adopted this ideal family structure — which are the only couples that benefit from this incentive anyway — while denying it to couples that are not providing the ideal family structure. Allowing all couples to get married would, after all, undermine the social understanding of marriage as an enterprise dedicated to the rearing of children.

Although a hypothetical Homemaker Act would be politically unfeasible at the present time, the sentiments behind it would undoubtedly have been endorsed by prior generations. And it wouldn’t be hard to find a modern politician or two that would endorse a more limited version of such an enactment. Rick Santorum has, in fact, already gone on the record advocating that the government should discourage two-income households:

In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might find they don’t both need to.

What happened in America so that mothers and fathers who leave their children in the care of someone else — or worse yet, home alone after school between three and six in the afternoon — find themselves more affirmed by society? Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism…

Sadly the propaganda campaign launched in the 1960s has taken root. The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness.

The enactment of a much diluted version of the Homemaker Act — one with the same goals although lesser penalties — is not inconceivable. And it would pass constitutional muster under a “true” rational basis review, as it is rationally related to an objective that has been repeatedly declared to be legitimate. All of the arguments that were advanced by the Prop 8 proponents would apply equally in this circumstance, resulting in the conclusion that a mandatory-homemaker statute is a valid, constitutional enactment, because it is based upon traditional notions of marriage and is rationally related to the State’s interest in promoting the optimal family structure for the upbringing of children.

Although it would pass rational basis review, such a law would be a deep infringement upon the right of private association. Luckily, for close to two decades now, rational basis review has been applied to laws like Proposition 8 or the Homemaker Act in name only — and, in practice, the courts have consistently recognized stronger protections for laws that infringe upon private family relationships.

-Susan

Does Illegitimacy’s Status as a Quasi-Suspect Class Permit Prohibitions on Same Sex Marriage to be Evaluated Under Intermediate Scrutiny?

Posted on by
5

Although sexual orientation is officially not a suspect class, almost all U.S. courts that have considered the permissibility of discrimination based upon that particular criterion have applied, in practice, a rather more exacting examination of the legislative objectives behind the discriminatory legislation than is typically permitted under rational basis review, even while simultaneously denying that they are doing anything of the sort. This is what is typically referred to as “rational basis with teeth” — the unofficial fourth category of review under the 14th Amendment. And until sexual orientation is declared to be a suspect class, or until the classification system is replaced with a scale, the courts can do nothing else.

But at least in the context of same sex marriage prohibitions, could intermediate scrutiny be directly invoked on the basis of the Supreme Court’s prior illegitimacy jurisprudence? Illegitimate children are already a suspect class under the law; it is impermissible under the 14th Amendment to burden children whose parents were not married at the time of their birth simply in order to encourage future couples to get married before having kids. So why can the state require that the children of same sex couples be illegitimate in order to encourage opposite sex couples to make their children legitimate?

The argument does not appear to be a particularly common one, but I wonder now why it isn’t made more often. One of the reoccurring arguments touted as a justification for Prop 8, as well as other prohibitions on gay marriage, is that marriage is uniquely designed to encourage responsible procreation, and that access to marriage should therefore only be granted where it will serve as a deterrent to reproducing accidentally outside of marriage. Marriage is only for straight people, the argument goes, because only straight people produce kids the old fashioned way, and the best way to raise kids that were produced the old fashioned way in the context of a marital relationship.

This argument is inadequate in that it provides no explanation for why kids that were not produced on accident are not also best raised in the context of a martial relationship. Many gay couples do, very purposefully, create and raise kids, and if kids are best raised by married couples, then it is pretty damned spiteful to order that those kids should be denied the benefit of married parents just so that straight couples who get pregnant are more likely to have a shotgun wedding.

Beyond being spiteful, prior Supreme Court decisions have repeatedly indicated that the objective itself is impermissible. In Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762 (1977), the Supreme Court rejected the argument that a law prohibiting intestate succession of bastards was constitutionally permissible, because

[i]n a case like this, the Equal Protection Clause requires more than the mere incantation of a proper state purpose. No one disputes the appropriateness of Illinois’ concern with the family unit, perhaps the most fundamental social institution of our society. The flaw in the analysis lies elsewhere. As we said in Lucas, the constitutionality of this law “depends upon the character of the discrimination and its relation to legitimate legislative aims.” 427 U.S. at 504. The court below did not address the relation between § 12 and the promotion of legitimate family relationships, thus leaving the constitutional analysis incomplete. The same observation can be made about this Court’s decision in Labine, but that case does not stand alone. In subsequent decisions, we have expressly considered and rejected the argument that a State may attempt to influence the actions of men and women by imposing sanctions on the children born of their illegitimate relationships.

Likewise in Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164 (1972), the Supreme Court refused to accept the argument that it is permissible to discriminate between legitimate and illegitimate children as a means of encouraging people to “shun illicit relations because the offspring [of those relationships] may not one day reap the benefits of workmen’s compensation.” 406 U.S. at 173. The Court found that the State’s interest in protecting “legitimate family relationships” may have been itself a legitimate objective, but it was not an end that could be promoted by inflicting hardship on those who happened to not be part of a traditional nuclear family arrangement:

[t]he status of illegitimacy has expressed through the ages society’s condemnation of irresponsible liaisons beyond the bonds of marriage. But visiting this condemnation on the head of an infant is illogical and unjust. Moreover, imposing disabilities on the illegitimate child is contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing. Obviously, no child is responsible for his birth, and penalizing the illegitimate child is an ineffectual — as well as an unjust — way of deterring the parent.

Almost all of the Supreme Court’s past opinions on distinctions based upon illegitimacy contain language that would be equally at home in the decision issued today by the 9th Circuit in Perry v. Brown. Gay couples are not responsible for the fact that straight people sometimes get knocked up — so why are they punished, and their kids forced to be illegitimate, on the chance that there could be a straight couple out there that would refuse to enter into any relationship that gay people were also allowed to enter? Punishing gay couples, and their children, by prohibiting them from entering into the contractual arrangement that the state has deemed the best for children to be raised in, does exactly what the Weber Court prohibited: it imposes disabilities on those who are not engaging in irresponsible procreation as a means of encouraging better behavior from those who are not being similarly responsible.

-Susan