Top court tosses itself off case
Too many justices have conflicts in apartheid case
The court couldn't take up an apartheid dispute involving some of the nation's largest companies because too many of the justices had investments or other ties with those corporate giants.
It appeared to be the first time in at least a quarter-century that the justices' financial holdings prevented them from taking a case.
The result is that a lawsuit will go forward accusing dozens of corporations of violating international law by assisting South Africa's former apartheid government. The companies and the Bush administration had asked the court to intervene, arguing that the lawsuit was damaging international relations, threatening to hurt South Africa's economic development and punishing the companies using a fuzzy legal concept.
Four of the nine justices sat out the court's consideration of the case. Federal law calls for at least six to hear any case.
Short of the required number, the court took the only path available to it and upheld an appeals court ruling allowing the lawsuit to proceed.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy provided no explanation for their decision not to take part in the case.
The justices' latest financial disclosures show:
• Roberts owned Hewlett-Packard stock worth $15,000 to $50,000.
• Breyer owned stock in Colgate-Palmolive, Bank of America, IBM and Nestle valued at $145,000 to $350,000.
• Alito holds $100,000 to $250,000 in Exxon Mobil stock, which also caused him to sit out the still-pending dispute over the $2.5 billion punitive damages award for the Exxon Valdez disaster. Alito also owns as much as $15,000 in Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Kennedy does not hold stock in any affected company, but his son, Gregory, is a managing director at Credit Suisse. Kennedy sat out a case last term involving the investment bank.
New York University law professor Stephen Gillers, an expert on judicial ethics, said he expects this issue to arise from time to time. "Whether it's family relationships or wealth, this is going to happen," Gillers said. "It hasn't reached the point where we need to do something."
Some apparent conflicts, like Kennedy's, are beyond the justices' direct command.
But they maintain control over their investment portfolios, and should take steps to minimize conflicts, said Arthur Hellman, an ethics expert at the University of Pittsburgh law school.
You can be the first to comment on this story.