07-0016-cv The Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc. 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 3 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 4 5 August Term, 2008 6 7 8 (Argued: January 12, 2009 Decided: October 2, 2009) 9 10 Docket No. 07-0016-cv 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 13 14 THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF SUDAN, 15 REV. MATTHEW MATHIANG DEANG, 16 REV. JAMES KOUNG NINREW, NUER 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IN U.S.A, 18 FATUMA NYAWANG GARBANG, NYOT TOT RIETH, 19 individually and on behalf of the estate 20 Of her husband JOSEPH THIET MAKUAC, 21 STEPHEN HOTH, STEPHEN KUINA, CHIEF 22 TUNGUAR KUEIGWONG RAT, LUKA AYUOL YOL, 23 THOMAS MALUAL KAP, PUOK BOL MUT, CHIEF 24 PATAI TUT, CHIEF PETER RING PATAI, CHIEF 25 GATLUAK CHIEK JANG, YIEN NYINAR RIEK AND 26 MORIS BOL MAJOK, on behalf of themselves 27 and all others similarly situated, 28 29 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 30 31 -v.- 07-0016-cv 32 33 TALISMAN ENERGY, INC., 34 35 Defendant-Appellee, 36 37 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN, 38 39 Defendant. 40 41 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 42 1 Before: JACOBS, Chief Judge, LEVAL and CABRANES, 2 Circuit Judges. 3 4 Appeal from a grant of summary judgment in favor of 5 Talisman Energy, Inc. (“Talisman”) on Plaintiffs-Appellants’ 6 claims under the Alien Tort Statute. The United States 7 District Court for the Southern District of New York (Cote, 8 J.) held that to establish accessorial liability for 9 violations of the international norms prohibiting genocide, 10 war crimes, and crimes against humanity, plaintiffs were 11 required to prove, inter alia, that Talisman provided 12 substantial assistance to the Government of the Sudan with 13 the purpose of aiding its unlawful conduct. We agree, and 14 affirm dismissal on the ground that plaintiffs have not 15 established Talisman’s purposeful complicity in human rights 16 abuses. 17 PAUL L. HOFFMAN, Schonbrun 18 DeSimone Seplow Harris & 19 Hoffman, Venice, CA (Adrienne J. 20 Quarry, Schonbrun DeSimone 21 Seplow Harris & Hoffman, Venice, 22 CA; Carey D’Avino, Stephen 23 Whinston, and Keino Robinson, 24 Berger & Montague, P.C., 25 Philadelphia, PA; Lawrence Kill, 26 John O’Connor, and Stanley 27 Bowker, Anderson Kill & Olick, 28 P.C., New York, NY; Daniel E. 29 Seltz, Steven E. Fineman, and 30 Rachel Geman, Lieff, Cabraser, 31 Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, New 2 1 York, NY on the brief), for 2 Plaintiffs-Appellants 3 4 MARC J. GOTTRIDGE (Joseph P. 5 Cyr, Scott W. Reynolds, Andrew 6 M. Behrman, on the brief), 7 Lovells, New York, NY, for 8 Defendant-Appellee 9 10 RALPH STEINHARDT, Professor of 11 Law, George Washington 12 University Law School, 13 Washington, DC (William J. 14 Aceves, Professor of Law, 15 California Western School of 16 Law, San Diego, CA, on the 17 brief) for Amici Curiae 18 International Law 19 Scholars in Support of 20 Appellants 21 22 RICHARD L. HERZ (Marco B. 23 Simons, on the brief), 24 Earthrights International, 25 Washington, DC, for Amicus 26 Curiae Earthrights International 27 in Support of Plaintiffs- 28 Appellants and Reversal 29 30 Judith Brown Chomsky and Michael 31 Poulshock, Law Office of Judith 32 Brown Chomsky, Elkins Park, PA, 33 and Jennifer M. Green and 34 Katherine Gallagher, Center for 35 Constitutional Rights, New York, 36 NY, for Amicus Curiae on Civil 37 Conspiracy and Joint Criminal 38 Enterprise in Support of 39 Plaintiffs-Appellants and in 40 Support of Reversal of the 41 District Court’s Opinion 42 43 Terrence P. Collingsworth, Derek 44 Baxter, and Natacha Thys, 3 1 International Labor Rights Fund, 2 Washington, DC, for Amicus 3 Curiae International Labor 4 Rights Fund in Support of 5 Plaintiffs-Appellants 6 7 Mark Diamond, Counsel for Amici 8 Curaie, New York, NY, for Amici 9 Curiae Lexiuste Cajuste, Neris 10 Gonzalez, Zenaida Velásquez 11 Rodriguez, and Francisco 12 Calderon in Support of 13 Plaintiffs-Appellants Urging 14 Reversal 15 16 Renee C. Redman, Legal Director, 17 American Civil Liberties Union 18 Foundation of Connecticut, 19 Hartford, CT, for Amici Curiae 20 Canadian Parliamentarians in 21 Support of the Appellants 22 23 Jonathan W. Cuneo and R. Brent 24 Walton, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, 25 LLP, Washington, DC, for Amici 26 Curiae The Rt. Reverand Keith L. 27 Ackerman, SSC, Bishop, Diocese 28 of Quincy, the Episcopal Church; 29 Christian Solidarity 30 International-USA; Coalition for 31 the Defense of Human Rights; 32 Family Research Council; 33 Institute on Religion & 34 Democracy; Renew Network; 35 Servant’s Heart; Sudan Advocacy 36 Action Forum; Sudan Sunrise; and 37 Trinity Presbytery’s Sudan 38 Ministry in Support of 39 Appellants 40 41 LEWIS S. YELIN, Attorney, 42 Appellate Staff, Civil Division, 43 U.S. Department of Justice, 44 Washington, DC (Michael J. 4 1 Garcia, United States Attorney, 2 and David S. Jones, Assistant 3 United States Attorney, Southern 4 District of New York, New York, 5 NY, John B. Bellinger III, Legal 6 Advisor, Department of State, 7 Washington, DC, Jeffrey S. 8 Bucholtz, Acting Assistant 9 Attorney General, and Douglas N. 10 Letter and Robert M. Loeb, 11 Attorneys, Appellate Staff, 12 Civil Division, U.S. Department 13 of Justice, Washington, DC, on 14 the brief), for Amicus Curiae 15 United States 16 17 SAMUEL ESTREICHER, NYU School of 18 Law, New York, NY (Michael D. 19 Ramsey, University of San Diego 20 School of Law, San Diego, CA on 21 the brief), for Amici Curiae 22 Professors of International Law, 23 Federal Jurisdiction and the 24 Foreign Relations Law of the 25 United States in Support of 26 Defendant-Appellee 27 28 Karen M. Asner and Milana 29 Salzman, White & Case LLP, New 30 York, NY, for Amicus Curiae the 31 Government of Canada in Support 32 of Dismissal of the Underlying 33 Action 34 35 Robin S. Conrad and Amar D. 36 Sarwal, National Chamber 37 Litigation Center, Inc., 38 Washington, DC, and John 39 Townsend Rich, Paul R. Friedman, 40 and William F. Sheehan, Goodwin 41 Proctor LLP, Washington, DC for 42 Amicus Curiae the Chamber of 43 Commerce of the United States of 44 America in Support of Defendant- 5 1 Appellee Talisman Energy, Inc. 2 and in Support of Affirmance 3 4 Daniel J. Popeo and Richard A. 5 Samp, Washington Legal 6 Foundation, Washington, DC for 7 Amici Curiae Washington Legal 8 Foundation and Allied 9 Educational Foundation in 10 Support of Defendant/Appellee, 11 Urging Affirmance 12 13 James J. Dillon, Foley Hoag LLP, 14 Boston, MA, Janet Walker, 15 Professor of Law, Osgood Hall 16 Law School of York University, 17 Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and H. 18 Scott Fairley, Theall Group LLP, 19 Toronto, Ontario, Canada, for 20 Amici Curiae the Canadian 21 Chamber of Commerce; the Mining 22 Association of Canada; the 23 Canadian Association of 24 Petroleum Producers; and the 25 Prospectors and Developers 26 Association of Canada in Support 27 of Defendant-Appellee 28 29 James J. Dillon, Foley Hoag LLP, 30 Boston, MA, for Amici Curiae The 31 National Foreign Trade Council; 32 The Independent Petroleum 33 Association of America; and The 34 United States Council for 35 International Business in 36 Support of Defendant-Appellee 37 38 Christopher Greenwood, CMG, QC, 39 Essex Court Chambers, London, 40 United Kingdom, for Amicus 41 Curiae Professor Christopher 42 Greenwood, CMG, QC, in Support 43 of Defendant-Appellee 44 6 1 James Crawford, Whewell 2 Professor of International Law, 3 University of Cambridge, 4 Cambridge, United Kingdom, for 5 Amicus Curiae Professor James 6 Crawford in Support of 7 Defendant-Appellee 8 9 10 DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge: 11 12 Plaintiffs-Appellants are Sudanese who allege that they 13 are victims of human rights abuses committed by the 14 Government of the Sudan in Khartoum (“the Government”) and 15 that Talisman Energy, Inc. (“Talisman”), a Canadian 16 corporation, aided and abetted or conspired with the 17 Government to advance those abuses that facilitated the 18 development of Sudanese oil concessions by Talisman 19 affiliates. Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the United 20 States District Court for the Southern District of New York 21 (Cote, J.) dismissing their claims under the Alien Tort 22 Statute (“ATS”), 28 U.S.C. § 1350. 23 We hold that under the principles articulated by the 24 United States Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 25 U.S. 692 (2004), the standard for imposing accessorial 26 liability under the ATS must be drawn from international 27 law; and that under international law, a claimant must show 28 that the defendant provided substantial assistance with the 7 1 purpose of facilitating the alleged offenses. Applying that 2 standard, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary 3 judgment in favor of Talisman, because plaintiffs presented 4 no evidence that the company acted with the purpose of 5 harming civilians living in southern Sudan. 6 It becomes necessary to set out at some length the 7 background of the hostilities in the Sudan; the history of 8 the oil enterprise, its facilities and corporate structure; 9 the security measures taken by the enterprise and by the 10 Government; the injuries and persecutions alleged; and the 11 extent and nature of Talisman’s connection to the human 12 rights abuses. 13 14 BACKGROUND 15 A. Civil War in the Sudan 16 At the time Sudan obtained its independence from 17 Britain and Egypt in 1956, civil war broke out between the 18 Arab-dominated Islamic regime in the north, and the non- 19 Muslim African population in the south.1 In 1972, the two 1 The facts are set forth in detail in the district court’s summary judgment decision.