The headquarters of the US Chamber of Commerce, located across from Lafayette Park in Washington, is a limestone structure that looks almost as majestic as the A sede de os E.U. Chamber of Commerce, localizado em frente da Lafayette Park, em Washington, é uma pedra calcária estrutura que parece quase tão majestoso como o Supreme Court Supremo Tribunal . The similarity is no coincidence: both buildings were designed by the same architect, Cass Gilbert. A semelhança não é coincidência: os dois edifícios foram projectados pelo mesmo arquitecto, Cass Gilbert. Lately, however, the affinities between the court and the chamber, a lavishly financed business-advocacy organization, seem to be more than just architectural. Ultimamente, porém, as afinidades entre o tribunal e as câmaras, uma empresa de advocacia ricamente financiadas organização, parece ser mais do que apenas arquitectónico. The Supreme Court term that ended last June was, by all measures, exceptionally good for American business. O Supremo Tribunal prazo, que terminou no passado mês de Junho foi, por todas as medidas, excepcionalmente bom para as empresas americanas. The chamber’s litigation center filed briefs in 15 cases and its side won in 13 of them — the highest percentage of victories in the center’s 30-year history. A câmara do contencioso centro arquivados mandatos em 15 casos eo seu lado venceu em 13 deles - a maior percentagem de vitórias no centro do 30 anos de história. The current term, which ends this summer, has also been shaping up nicely for business interests. O actual mandato, que termina este Verão, também foi moldando-se bem para os interesses comerciais.

I visited the chamber recently to talk with Robin Conrad, who heads the litigation effort, about her recent triumphs. Visitei recentemente a câmara para conversar com Robin Conrad, que dirige o contencioso esforço, com a sua recente triunfos. Conrad, an appealing, soft-spoken woman, lives with her family on a horse farm in Maryland, where she rides with a fox-chasing club called the Howard County-Iron Bridge Hounds. Conrad, uma atraente, soft-falado mulher, vive com sua família em um cavalo fazenda em Maryland, onde ela rides com uma raposa-perseguia clube chamado a Howard County-Iron Bridge Hounds. Her office, playfully adorned by action figures of women like Xena the Warrior Princess and Seu escritório, playfully adornados por ação figuras de mulheres como Xena a Princesa eo Guerreiro Hillary Rodham Clinton Hillary Rodham Clinton , has one of the most impressive views in Washington. , Tem uma das mais impressionantes vistas em Washington. “You can see the White House through the trees,” she said as we peered through a window overlooking the park. "Você pode ver a Casa Branca através das árvores", disse ela enquanto peered através de uma janela com vista para o parque. “In the old days, you could actually see people bathing in the fountain. "Nos velhos tempos, você realmente pode ver pessoas balneares na fonte. Homeless people.” Pessoas desalojadas ".

Conrad was in an understandably cheerful mood. Conrad foi compreensivelmente, em um ambiente alegre. Though the current Supreme Court has a well-earned reputation for divisiveness, it has been surprisingly united in cases affecting business interests. Embora o atual Supremo Tribunal tem uma bem-ganhou reputação de divisões, que tem sido surpreendentemente unidos em casos que afectem os interesses comerciais. Of the 30 business cases last term, 22 were decided unanimously, or with only one or two dissenting votes. Dos 30 casos negócio último prazo, 22 foram decididos por unanimidade, ou com apenas um ou dois votos contra. Conrad said she was especially pleased that several of the most important decisions were written by liberal justices, speaking for liberal and conservative colleagues alike. Conrad disse que ela estava especialmente satisfeito pelo facto de algumas das decisões mais importantes foram escritos por liberal justices, falando de liberal e conservador colegas também. In opinions last term, Em pareceres último prazo, Ruth Bader Ginsburg Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Stephen Breyer and David Souter each went out of his or her way to question the use of lawsuits to challenge corporate wrongdoing — a strategy championed by progressive groups like , Stephen Breyer e David Souter cada saiu de seu caminho para questionar a utilização de ações judiciais para impugnar corporativa irregularidades - uma estratégia defendida pelo progressivo grupos como Public Citizen Public Citizen but routinely denounced by conservatives as “regulation by litigation.” Conrad reeled off some of her favorite moments: “Justice Ginsburg talked about how ‘private-securities fraud actions, if not adequately contained, can be employed abusively.’ Justice Breyer had a wonderful quote about how Congress was trying to ‘weed out unmeritorious securities lawsuits.’ Justice Souter talked about how the threat of litigation ‘will push cost-conscious defendants to settle.’ ” Mas rotineiramente denunciado por conservadores como "regulação pelo contencioso". Conrad reeled off alguns dos seus momentos favoritos: "Justiça Ginsburg falou como" fraude títulos privados de ações, se não devidamente contidos, pode ser utilizado abusivamente. "Justiça Breyer tinha uma maravilhosa Citação sobre o Congresso estava a tentar 'eliminar unmeritorious títulos judiciais. "Justiça Souter falou sobre a forma como a ameaça de processos judiciais" vai empurrar custo-consciente demandados para resolver "."

Examples like these point to an ideological sea change on the Supreme Court. Exemplos como estes apontam para uma grande mudança ideológica sobre o Supremo Tribunal. A generation ago, progressive and consumer groups petitioning the court could count on favorable majority opinions written by justices who viewed big business with skepticism — or even outright prejudice. Uma geração atrás, progressistas e os grupos de consumidores petições ao tribunal poderia contar com a maioria favorável pareceres escritos por conselheiros que visualizou um grande negócio com ceticismo - ou mesmo definitivas prejuízo. An economic populist like William O. Douglas, the former New Deal crusader who served on the court from 1939 to 1975, once unapologetically announced that he was “ready to bend the law in favor of the environment and against the corporations.” Um económica populistas como William O. Douglas, o ex-New Deal cruzado, que serviu no tribunal de 1939 a 1975, uma vez unapologetically anunciou que estava "pronto para dobrar a lei, em favor do meio ambiente e contra as corporações".

Today, however, there are no economic populists on the court, even on the liberal wing. Hoje, no entanto, não há económica populistas sobre o tribunal, mesmo sobre a ala liberal. And ever since E desde então John Roberts John Roberts was appointed chief justice in 2005, the court has seemed only more receptive to business concerns. Foi nomeado chefe justiça, em 2005, o tribunal tem parecia apenas mais receptivo às preocupações empresariais. Forty percent of the cases the court heard last term involved business interests, up from around 30 percent in recent years. Quarenta por cento dos casos, o tribunal ouviu último prazo envolvidos interesses empresariais, a partir de cerca de 30 por cento nos últimos anos. While the Rehnquist Court heard less than one antitrust decision a year, on average, between 1988 and 2003, the Roberts Court has heard seven in its first two terms — and all of them were decided in favor of the corporate defendants. Embora o Tribunal ouviu Rehnquist menos de uma decisão antitruste um ano, em média, entre 1988 e 2003, o Tribunal Roberts tenha ouvido sete em seus dois primeiros termos - e todas elas foram decididas em favor dos réus corporativas.

Business cases at the Supreme Court typically receive less attention than cases concerning issues like affirmative action, abortion or the death penalty. Negócios casos, o Supremo Tribunal normalmente recebem menos atenção do que casos relativos a questões como a ação afirmativa, o aborto ou a pena de morte. The disputes tend to be harder to follow: the legal arguments are more technical, the underlying stories less emotional. As disputas tendem a ser mais difícil de seguir: os argumentos jurídicos são mais técnicos, as notícias menos emocional. But these cases — which include shareholder suits, antitrust challenges to corporate mergers, patent disputes and efforts to reduce punitive-damage awards and prevent product-liability suits — are no less important. Mas estes casos - que incluem accionista fatos, antitrust desafios para fusões corporativas, patente disputas e os esforços de redução de danos punitivos prêmios e prevenir produto-responsabilidade fatos - não são menos importantes. They involve billions of dollars, have huge consequences for the economy and can have a greater effect on people’s daily lives than the often symbolic battles of the culture wars. Elas envolvem bilhões de dólares, têm enormes conseqüências para a economia e pode ter um maior efeito sobre a vida quotidiana dos cidadãos do que a freqüência simbólico batalhas da cultura guerras. In the current Supreme Court term, the justices have already blocked a liability suit against Medtronic, the manufacturer of a heart catheter, and rejected a type of shareholder suit that includes a claim against Enron. No actual Supremo Tribunal prazo, os conselheiros já bloqueou um passivo naipe contra Medtronic, o fabricante de um cateter coração, e rejeitou um tipo de accionista naipe que inclui uma reclamação contra a Enron. In the coming months, the court will decide whether to reduce the largest punitive-damage award in American history, which resulted from the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. Nos próximos meses, o tribunal decidirá se a redução de danos punitivos, o maior prêmio na história americana, que resultou da Exxon Valdez maré negra em 1989.

What should we make of the Supreme Court’s transformation? O que devemos fazer do Supremo Tribunal da transformação? Throughout its history, the court has tended to issue opinions, in areas from free speech to gender equality, that reflect or consolidate a social consensus. Ao longo da sua história, o tribunal tem tendência para emitir pareceres, em áreas de livre expressão para a igualdade entre os sexos, que reflectem ou consolidação de um consenso social. With their pro-business jurisprudence, the justices may be capturing an emerging spirit of agreement among liberal and conservative elites about the value of free markets. Com os seus pro-business jurisprudência, a justiça pode ser capturando uma emergente espírito de consenso entre liberais e conservadores elites acerca do valor do livre mercado. Among the professional classes, many Democrats and Republicans, whatever their other disagreements, have come to share a relatively laissez-faire, technocratic vision of the economy and are suspicious of excessive regulation and reflexive efforts to vilify big business. Entre as classes profissionais, muitos democratas e republicanos, independentemente das suas outras divergências, têm vindo a partilhar um relativamente laissez-faire, visão tecnocrática da economia e são suspeitos de regulamentação excessiva e reflexiva esforços para vilify big business. Judges, lawyers and law professors (such as myself) drilled in cost-benefit analysis over the past three decades, are no exception. Juízes, advogados e professores lei (como eu) perfurado na análise custo-benefício sobre as três décadas passadas, não são excepção. It should come as little surprise that John Roberts and Stephen Breyer, both of whom studied the economic analysis of law at Harvard, have similar instincts in business cases. Ela deveria vir como nenhuma surpresa que John Roberts e Stephen Breyer, tanto de quem estudou a análise económica do direito em Harvard, tem os mesmos instintos no negócio casos.

This elite consensus, however, is not necessarily shared by the country as a whole. Essa elite consenso, porém, não é necessariamente compartilhada pelo país como um todo. If anything, America may be entering something of a populist moment. Se há alguma coisa, América podem ser introduzidos algo de um populista momento. If you combine the groups of Americans in a recent Pew survey who lean toward some strain of economic populism — from disaffected and conservative Democrats to traditional liberals to social and big-government conservatives — at least two-thirds of all voters arguably feel sympathy for government intervention in the economy. Se combinar os grupos de americanos em um recente inquérito que Pew magra para algumas estirpes do populismo econômico - desde disaffected e conservadores democratas liberais tradicionais para a social e big-government conservadores - pelo menos dois terços do total de eleitores sem dúvida sentir simpatia por governo Intervenção na economia. Could it be, then, that the court is reflecting an elite consensus while contravening the sentiments of most Americans? Não será, então, que o tribunal está a reflectir uma elite consenso enquanto infringem os sentimentos da maioria dos americanos? Only history will ultimately make this clear. Apenas história acabará por tornar isso claro. One thing, however, is certain already: the transformation of the court was no accident. Uma coisa, porém, já é certa: a transformação do tribunal havia nenhum acidente. It represents the culmination of a carefully planned, behind-the-scenes campaign over several decades to change not only the courts but also the country’s political culture. Ela representa o culminar de um cuidadosamente planeada, para trás-os-cenas da campanha ao longo de várias décadas para alterar não só a justiça, mas também cultura política do país.

II. II.

The origins of the business community’s campaign to transform the Supreme Court can be traced back precisely to Aug. 23, 1971. As origens da comunidade empresarial da campanha para transformar o Supremo Tribunal pode ser rastreada precisamente a 23 de Agosto, 1971. That was the day when Lewis F. Powell Jr., a corporate lawyer in Richmond, Va., wrote a memo to his friend Eugene B. Snydor, then the head of the education committee of the US Chamber of Commerce. Esse foi o dia em que Lewis F. Powell Jr., um advogado corporativo em Richmond, Va., escreveu um memorando para seu amigo Eugene B. Snydor e, em seguida, o chefe da comissão de educação os E.U. Chamber of Commerce. In the memo, Powell expressed his concern that the American economic system was “under broad attack.” He identified several aggressors: the New Left, the liberal media, rebellious students on college campuses and, most important, Na nota, Powell expressou sua preocupação de que o sistema económico americano estava "sob ataque amplo." Ele identificou diversos agressores: a Nova Esquerda, o liberal media, rebelde estudantes no campus da faculdade e, mais importante, Ralph Nader Ralph Nader . Earlier that year, Nader founded Public Citizen to advocate for consumer rights, bring antitrust actions when the Justice Department did not and sue federal agencies when they failed to adopt health and safety regulations. No início desse ano, Nader fundou Public Citizen para advogar para os direitos do consumidor, trazer antitrust acções quando a Justiça Departamento não processar e agências federais, quando não conseguiu aprovar regulamentos de segurança e saúde.

Powell claimed that this attack on the economic system was “quite new in the history of America.” Ever since 1937, when President Powell afirmou que este atentado contra o sistema económico era "absolutamente novo na história da América. 1937, quando o Presidente Franklin D. Roosevelt Franklin D. Roosevelt threatened to pack a conservative Supreme Court with more progressive justices, the court had largely deferred to federal and state economic regulations. Ameaçada de embalar um conservador Supremo Tribunal com mais progressista conselheiros, o tribunal teve em grande parte diferida para federal e estadual económica regulamentos. And by the ’60s, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren had embraced a form of economic populism, often favoring the interests of small business over big business, even at the expense of consumers. E pelos anos 60, o Supremo Tribunal ao abrigo do Chief Justice Earl Warren tinha abraçado uma forma de populismo econômico, muitas vezes favorecendo os interesses das pequenas empresas ao longo do grande capital, mesmo em detrimento dos consumidores. But what Powell saw in the work of Nader and others was altogether more extreme: a radical campaign that was “broadly based and consistently pursued.” Mas o que Powell viu no trabalho de Nader e outros foi totalmente mais extremas: uma campanha radical que foi "amplo e consistentemente prosseguida".

To counter the growing influence of public-interest litigation groups like Public Citizen, Powell urged the Chamber of Commerce to begin a multifront lobbying campaign on behalf of business interests, including hiring top business lawyers to bring cases before the Supreme Court. Para contrariar a crescente influência dos grupos de interesse público contencioso como Public Citizen, Powell instou a Câmara de Comércio para começar uma campanha multifront lobbying em nome dos interesses comerciais, incluindo a contratação top negócios advogados para levar casos perante o Supremo Tribunal. “The judiciary,” Powell predicted, “may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change.” Two months after he wrote the memo, Powell was appointed by "A magistratura", previu Powell, "pode ser o instrumento mais importante para o social, económico e político mudar." Dois meses depois, ele escreveu o memo, Powell foi nomeado pelo Richard Nixon Richard Nixon to the Supreme Court. Para o Supremo Tribunal. And six years later, in 1977, after steadily expanding its lobbying efforts, the chamber established the National Chamber Litigation Center to file cases and briefs on behalf of business interests in federal and state courts. E seis anos mais tarde, em 1977, após ter vindo a expandir o seu lobby esforços, a câmara criou o Centro Nacional Secção de Contencioso arquivo casos mandatos e em nome do interesse comercial em tribunais federais e estaduais.

Today, the Chamber of Commerce is an imposing lobbying force. Hoje, a Câmara de Comércio é uma imponente lobby vigor. To fulfill its mission of serving “the unified interests of American business,” it collects membership dues from more than three million businesses and related organizations; last year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the chamber spent more than $21 million lobbying the White House, Congress and regulatory agencies on legal matters. Para cumprir a sua missão de servir "os interesses dos americanos unificado negócios", que recolhe adesão taxas de mais de três milhões de empresas e organizações relacionadas; no ano passado, de acordo com o Center for Responsive Politics, a câmara gastou mais de US $ 21 milhões de lobbying, o Branco House, Congresso e as agências reguladoras em questões jurídicas. But its battle against the forces of Naderism got off to a slow start. Mas a sua batalha contra as forças do Naderism teve um início lento. In 1983, when Robin Conrad arrived at the chamber, the Supreme Court was handing Nader and his allies significant victories. Em 1983, quando Robin Conrad chegou à câmara, o Supremo Tribunal foi entregando Nader e seus aliados importantes vitórias. That year, for example, the court held that Nesse ano, por exemplo, o tribunal considerou que o President Reagan Presidente Reagan ’s secretary of transportation, Andrew L. Lewis Jr., acted capriciously when he repealed a regulation, inspired by Nader’s advocacy, that required automakers to install passive restraints like air bags. 'S secretário de transporte, Andrew L. Lewis Jr., agiu capriciously quando ele revogado um regulamento, inspirado por Nader da advocacia, que é exigido para instalar montadoras passiva restrições como air bags. In 1986, the chamber supported a challenge to the Em 1986, a câmara apoiou um desafio para o Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Protection Agency ’s aerial surveillance of a Dow Chemical plant. 'S vigilância aérea de uma planta Dow Chemical. The chamber’s side lost, 5-4. A câmara do lado perdeu, 5-4.

But eventually, things began to change. Mas, finalmente, as coisas começaram a mudar. The chamber started winning cases in part by refining its strategy. A câmara começou ganhando casos em parte por refinação a sua estratégia. With Conrad’s help, the chamber’s Supreme Court litigation program began to offer practice moot-court arguments for lawyers scheduled to argue important cases. Com a ajuda do Conrad, a câmara do Supremo Tribunal contencioso programa começou a oferecer prática-moot tribunal argumentos dos advogados programado para defender casos importantes. The chamber also began hiring the most-respected Democratic and Republican Supreme Court advocates to persuade the court to hear more business cases. A câmara também começaram a contratar mais respeitado-Democrata e Republicano Supremo Tribunal preconiza para convencer o tribunal de ouvir mais negócios casos. Although many of the businesses that belong to the Chamber of Commerce have their own in-house lawyers, they would have the chamber file “friend of the court” briefs on their behalf. Embora muitas das empresas que pertencem à Câmara de Comércio têm os seus próprios in-house advogados, que teriam a câmara arquivo "amigo do tribunal" fichas em seu nome. The chamber would decide which of the many cases brought to its attention were in the long-term strategic interest of American business and then hire the leading business lawyers to write supporting briefs or argue the case. A câmara irá decidir quais dos muitos casos foram levados ao seu conhecimento, a longo prazo, interesse estratégico da empresa americana e, em seguida, o líder empresarial contratar advogados para escrever colaborar com mandatos ou argumentar o caso.

Until the mid-’80s, there wasn’t an organized group of law firms that specialized in arguing business cases before the Supreme Court. Até meados dos anos 80, não havia um grupo organizado de direito que as empresas especializadas no negócio argumentando casos perante o Supremo Tribunal. But in 1985, Rex Lee, the solicitor general under Reagan, left the government to start a Supreme Court appellate practice at the firm Sidley Austin. Mas, em 1985, Rex Lee, o advogado geral sob Reagan, deixou o governo para iniciar um Supremo Tribunal recurso prática na empresa Sidley Austin. Lee’s goal was to offer business clients the same level of expert representation before the Supreme Court that the solicitor general’s office provides to federal agencies. Lee's objetivo era oferecer aos clientes as empresas do mesmo nível de peritos representação perante o Supremo Tribunal, que o escritório do advogado geral prevê para agências federais. Lee’s success prompted other law firms to hire former Supreme Court clerks and former members of the solicitor general’s office to start business practices. Lee's sucesso levou as empresas a contratar outro direito antigo Supremo Tribunal funcionários e ex-membros do advogado geral do escritório para iniciar as práticas empresariais. The Chamber of Commerce, for its part, began to coordinate the strategy of these lawyers in the most important business cases. A Câmara de Comércio, por seu lado, começou a coordenar a estratégia de esses advogados no mais importante centro comercial casos.

At times, the strategic calculations can be quite personal. Às vezes, os cálculos estratégicos podem ser muito pessoais. Because Supreme Court clerks have tremendous influence in making recommendations about what cases the court should hear, Conrad told me, having well-known former clerks involved in submitting a brief can be especially important. Porque Supremo Tribunal funcionários têm uma enorme influência na formulação de recomendações sobre o caso, o tribunal deve ouvir, Conrad disse-me, depois de ter bem conhecido ex-funcionários envolvidos na apresentação de um breve pode ser especialmente importante. “When Justice O’Connor was on the bench and we knew her vote was very important, we had a case where the opposition had her favorite clerk on the brief, so we retained her next-favorite clerk,” she said with a laugh. "Quando Justiça O'Connor estava no banco e já sabíamos o seu voto foi muito importante, tivemos um caso em que a oposição teve seu favorito na secretaria breve, por isso, reteve o seu próximo secretário-favorito", disse ela com um riso. “We won.” "Nós ganhámos."

In our conversation, Conrad was especially enthusiastic about Maureen Mahoney, a former clerk for Chief Na nossa conversa, Conrad foi especialmente entusiasmados com Maureen Mahoney, um ex-chefe de secretaria Justice Rehnquist Justiça Rehnquist and one of the top Supreme Court litigators who coordinate strategy with the chamber. E uma das principais Supremo Tribunal litigators que coordenam estratégia com a câmara. When Mahoney agreed in 2005 to represent an appeal by the disgraced accounting firm Arthur Andersen, which was convicted in 2002 of obstructing justice by shredding documents related to the audit of Enron, few people thought the Supreme Court would take the case. Quando Mahoney acordado em 2005 para representar um apelo pela disgraced contabilidade empresa Arthur Andersen, que foi condenado em 2002, de obstrução à justiça por retalhamento documentos relacionados com a auditoria da Enron, poucas pessoas pensavam, o Supremo Tribunal levaria o caso. “The climate was very anti-Enron,” Mahoney told me, “and it was viewed as a doomed petition.” "O clima era muito anti-Enron", Mahoney disse-me ", e ele foi visto como um condenado petição".

Mahoney rehearsed her Supreme Court argument in a moot court sponsored by the chamber. Mahoney ensaiado ela Supremo Tribunal argumento num moot tribunal patrocinado pela câmara. (“She was absolutely dazzling,” Conrad recalls.) On April 27, 2005, Mahoney stood calmly before the justices and delivered one of the best oral arguments I’ve ever seen at the Supreme Court. ( "Ela estava absolutamente deslumbrante", recorda Conrad.) Em 27 de abril de 2005, Mahoney ficava com calma antes da justiça e emitiu um dos melhores argumentos orais que eu já vi no Supremo Tribunal. She argued that because Arthur Andersen’s accountants had followed a standard document-destruction procedure before receiving the government’s subpoena, they couldn’t be guilty of a crime; they weren’t aware what they were doing was criminal. Ela argumentou que, devido Arthur Andersen's contabilistas tinha seguido um padrão documento de destruição procedimento antes de receber a intimação do governo, que não poderia ser culpado de um crime, pois eles não estavam conscientes de que estavam fazendo aquilo que foi criminosa. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed and reversed the conviction, 9-0. O Supremo Tribunal unanimidade e inverteu a condenação, 9-0.

The Arthur Andersen case is a good example of how significantly the Supreme Court has changed its attitude about cases involving securities fraud — and business cases more generally — from the Warren to the Roberts era. A Arthur Andersen caso é um bom exemplo de como significativamente o Supremo Tribunal mudou a sua atitude sobre casos que envolvam valores mobiliários fraude - e processos empresariais de um modo mais geral - desde a Warren ao Roberts era. In a case in 1964, the court ruled that aggrieved investors and consumers could file private lawsuits to enforce the securities laws, even in cases in which Congress hadn’t explicitly created a right to sue. Em um caso em 1964, o tribunal decidiu que o lesado os investidores e os consumidores poderiam arquivo privado judiciais para fazer cumprir as leis de valores mobiliários, mesmo nos casos em que o Congresso não tinha explicitamente criado um direito de demandar. In the mid-1990s, however, Congress substantially cut back on these citizen suits, and the court today has shown little patience for them. Em meados da década de 1990, porém, Congresso substancialmente reduzido sobre esses fatos cidadão, e hoje, o tribunal tem demonstrado pouca paciência para eles. Mahoney says she sees her victory in the Arthur Andersen case as significant because it applied the same principle in criminal cases involving corporate wrongdoing that the court had already been recognizing in civil cases: namely, “refusing to create greater damage remedies or criminal penalties than Congress has explicitly specified.” She describes the case as “a very important win for business.” Mahoney diz que ela vê vitória no caso Arthur Andersen como significativo porque aplicar o mesmo princípio em casos criminais envolvendo corporativa irregularidades que o tribunal já havia sido reconhecidos em processos civis: isto ", recusando-se a criar uma maior dano remédios ou sanções penais além Congresso Tem explicitamente especificado. "Ela descreve o caso como" uma vitória muito importante para o negócio. "

This term, the Supreme Court has continued to cut back on consumer suits. Este prazo, o Supremo Tribunal continuou a reduzir o consumo em fatos. In a ruling in January, the court refused to allow a shareholder suit against the suppliers to Charter Communications, one of the country’s largest cable companies. Em uma decisão em Janeiro, o tribunal se recusou a permitir que um accionista naipe contra os fornecedores a Carta Communications, uma das maiores do país cabo empresas. The suppliers were alleged to have “aided and abetted” Charter’s efforts to inflate its earnings, but the court held that Charter’s investors had to show that they had relied on the deceptive acts committed by the suppliers before the suit could proceed. Os fornecedores foram acusados de terem "ajudado e abetted" da Carta esforços para inflar seus lucros, mas o tribunal considerou que a Carta da investidores tiveram de mostrar que tinham invocado o enganoso actos cometidos pelos fornecedores antes do naipe poderia continuar. A week later, the court invoked the same principle when it refused to hear an appeal in a case related to Enron, in which investors are trying to recover $40 billion from Wall Street banks that they claim aided and abetted Enron’s fraud. Uma semana mais tarde, o tribunal invocar o mesmo princípio quando se recusou a ouvir um apelo em um caso relacionado a Enron, em que os investidores estão a tentar recuperar US $ 40 bilhões a partir de Wall Street bancos alegam que ajudaram abetted Enron e da fraude. As a result, the shareholder suit against the banks may be dead. Como resultado, o acionista naipe contra os bancos podem ser mortos.

III. III.

In addition to litigating cases before the court, the Chamber of Commerce also lobbies Congress and the White House in an effort to change the composition of the court itself. Além de litigating casos perante o tribunal, a Câmara de Comércio também lobbies Congresso e da Casa Branca, em um esforço para mudar a composição do próprio tribunal. (Unlike many other government officials, the justices themselves are not, of course, subject to direct corporate lobbying.) The chamber’s efforts in this area were inspired by (Ao contrário de muitos outros funcionários governamentais, os próprios conselheiros não estão, naturalmente, sujeitos a pressões corporativas directo.) A câmara de esforços nesta área foram inspiradas por Robert Bork Robert Bork ’s thwarted nomination to the court in 1987. 'S frustrado nomeação ao tribunal, em 1987. Business groups were enthusiastic about Bork — not because of his conservative social views but because of his skepticism of vigorous antitrust enforcement. Negócios grupos estavam entusiasmados com Bork - não por causa das suas posições conservadoras social mas por causa de seu ceticismo de vigorosa antitrust execução. “In reaction to the Bork nomination, it struck us that we didn’t even have a process in place to be a player,” Conrad said. "Em reacção à nomeação Bork, ela atinge-nos que nem sequer têm um processo em lugar de ser um jogador", disse Conrad.

So the chamber set up a formal process for endorsing candidates after their nominations. Assim, a câmara criou um processo formal para endossar candidatos após a sua nomeação. The process was designed to be bipartisan; and the chamber has encouraged Democratic as well as Republican presidents to appoint justices. O processo foi concebido para ser bipartidarista; e da câmara tem incentivado Democrática, bem como presidentes republicanos de nomear conselheiros. Nominees are evaluated solely through the prism of their views about business. Nomeados são avaliados apenas pelo prisma dos seus pontos de vista sobre as empresas. “We’re very surgical in our analysis,” Conrad said. "Estamos muito cirúrgica na nossa análise", disse Conrad.

After the election of Após a eleição de Bill Clinton Bill Clinton , for example, the chamber endorsed Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who in addition to her pioneering achievements as the head of the women’s rights project at the ACLU had specialized, as a law professor, in the procedural rules in complex civil cases and was comfortable with the finer points of business litigation. , Por exemplo, a câmara aprovou Ruth Bader Ginsburg, que para além de suas realizações pioneiras como o chefe de direitos das mulheres no projeto ACLU tinha especializadas, como um professor de direito, em termos das regras processuais em complexos processos cíveis e era confortável Com as mais finas pontos de litígios comerciais. The chamber was especially enthusiastic about Clinton’s second nominee, Stephen Breyer, who made his name building a bipartisan consensus for airline deregulation as a special counsel on the judiciary committee; and who, as a Harvard Law professor, advocated an influential and moderate view on antitrust enforcement. A câmara foi especialmente entusiasmados com Clinton o segundo candidato, Stephen Breyer, que fez o seu nome bipartidarista construção de um consenso para a companhia aérea desregulamentação como um conselheiro especial sobre a magistratura comissão, e que, como um professor de Harvard Law, advogou um influente e moderada vista Sobre antitrust execução.

During Breyer’s confirmation hearings his sharpest critic was Ralph Nader, who testified that his pro-business rulings were “extraordinarily one-sided.” Another critic, Senator Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio, said that the fact that the chamber was the first organization to endorse Breyer indicated that “large corporations are very pleased with this nomination” and “the fact that Ralph Nader is opposed to it indicated that the average American has a reason to have some concern.” The chamber’s imprimatur helped reassure Republicans about Breyer, and he was confirmed with a vote of 87 to 9. Durante Breyer audiências de confirmação do seu sharpest crítico foi Ralph Nader, que testemunhou que o seu pro-business decisões eram "extremamente unilateral." Outro crítico, o senador Howard Metzenbaum de Ohio, disse que o facto de a câmara foi a primeira organização de Subscrevo Breyer indicou que "as grandes corporações estão muito satisfeito com esta nomeação" e "o facto de Ralph Nader se opõe a ele indicou que o americano médio tem um motivo para ter alguma preocupação." A câmara da imprimatur ajudou a tranquilizar republicanos sobre Breyer, E ele foi confirmada com uma votação de 87 a 9. “Frankly, we didn’t feel like we had anyone on the court since Justice Powell who truly understood business issues,” Conrad told me. "Francamente, não sinto como se tivesse alguém no tribunal desde Justiça Powell quem verdadeiramente entendido questões empresariais", disse-me Conrad. “Justice Breyer came close to that.” "Justiça Breyer chegaram perto a isso."

The Breyer and Ginsburg nominations also came at a time when liberal as well as conservative judges and academics were gravitating in increasing numbers to an economic approach to the law, originally developed at the O Breyer e Ginsburg nomeações também veio num momento em que liberais, bem como conservador juízes e professores universitários foram gravitam em um número cada vez maior de uma abordagem económica à lei, originalmente desenvolvido na University of Chicago University of Chicago . The law-and-economics movement sought to evaluate the efficiency of legal rules based on their costs and benefits for society as a whole. A lei-e-Economia movimento procurou avaliar a eficácia das normas jurídicas baseadas em seus custos e benefícios para a sociedade como um todo. Although originally conservative in its orientation, the movement also attracted prominent moderate and liberal scholars and judges like Breyer, who before his nomination wrote two books on regulation, arguing that government health-and-safety spending is distorted by sensational media reports of disasters that affect relatively few citizens. Embora inicialmente conservadora na sua orientação, o movimento também atraiu proeminente moderados e liberais acadêmicos e juízes como Breyer, que antes da sua nomeação escreveu dois livros sobre regulamento, argumentando que a administração de saúde e de segurança dos gastos é distorcida pela mídia sensacionalista relatórios de catástrofes que afectam Relativamente poucos cidadãos.

Since joining the Supreme Court, Breyer has also been an intellectual leader in antitrust and patent disputes, which often pit business against business, rather than business against consumers. Desde a sua adesão à Suprema Corte, Breyer também foi um intelectual líder na patente e antitruste litígios, que frequentemente pit negócio contra as empresas, em vez de empresas contra o consumidor. In those cases, many liberal scholars sympathetic to economic analysis have applauded the court for favoring competition rather than existing competitors, innovation rather than particular innovators. Nesses casos, muitos estudiosos liberal simpática a análise económica ter aplaudido o tribunal de favorecer a concorrência, em vez de concorrentes existentes, em vez de inovação particular inovadores. “The court deserves credit for trying to rationalize a totally irrational patent system, benefiting smaller new competitors rather than existing big ones,” says "O tribunal merece crédito por tentar racionalizar um sistema totalmente irracional patente, beneficiando pequenos novos concorrentes existentes, em vez de grandes", diz Lawrence Lessig Lawrence Lessig , an intellectual-property scholar at Stanford. , A propriedade intelectual, estudioso em Stanford.

Clinton’s nominations of Ginsburg and Breyer may have been welcomed by the chamber, but with the election of Clinton's nomeações de Ginsburg e Breyer pode ter sido bem acolhida pela câmara, mas com a eleição de George W. Bush George W. Bush , the chamber faced a dilemma. , A câmara enfrentou um dilema. Ever since the Reagan administration, there had been a divide on the right wing of the court between pragmatic free-market conservatives, who tended to favor business interests, and ideological states-rights conservatives. Desde que a administração Reagan, se tinha verificado uma fractura na ala direita do tribunal entre pragmática de mercado livre conservadores, que tendem a favorecer os interesses comerciais, e ideológica Estados-direitos conservadores. In some business cases, these two strands of conservatism diverged, leading the most staunch states-rights conservatives on the court, Em alguns casos, as empresas, estas duas vertentes do conservadorismo divergiram, levando a maioria dos Estados-acérrimo direitos conservadores sobre o tribunal, Antonin Scalia Antonin Scalia and E Clarence Thomas Clarence Thomas , to rule against business interests. , Para se pronunciar contra os interesses comerciais. Scalia and Thomas were reluctant to second-guess large punitive-damage verdicts by state juries, for example, or to hold that federally regulated cigarette manufacturers could not be sued in state court. Scalia e Thomas estavam relutantes em segunda-adivinhar grandes danos punitivos-veredictos pelo estado júris, por exemplo, ou para realizar esse federal regulamentado fabricantes de cigarros não poderia ser processado no tribunal estadual. As a result, under Conrad’s leadership, the chamber began a vigorous campaign to urge the Bush administration to appoint pro-business conservatives. Como resultado, sob a liderança da Conrad, a Câmara iniciou uma vigorosa campanha a apelar à administração Bush para nomear pró-negócios conservadores.

When it came time to replace Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Quando ele chegou o tempo para substituir Chief Justice William Rehnquist e Justiça Sandra Day O’Connor Sandra Day O'Connor , the candidate most enthusiastically supported by states-rights conservatives, Judge Michael Luttig, had a record on the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that some corporate interests feared might make him unpredictable in business cases. , O candidato mais entusiasticamente apoiada pelos Estados-direitos conservadores, juiz Michael Luttig, tinha um registro sobre o Tribunal de Apelações para o Circuito Quarta que alguns interesses corporativos temia poderá fazê-lo nos negócios casos imprevisíveis. (“One of my constant refrains is that being conservative doesn’t necessarily mean being pro-business,” Conrad told me.) The chamber and other business groups enthusiastically supported John Roberts, who had been hired by the chamber to write briefs in two Supreme Court cases in 2001 and 2002. ( "Um dos meus constante deixa é que sendo conservador não significa necessariamente que ser pró-negócios", disse-me Conrad). A câmara e outros grupos empresariais entusiasticamente apoiada John Roberts, que havia sido contratado pela câmara de escrever em dois mandatos Supremo Tribunal casos em 2001 e 2002. At the time of Roberts’s nomination, Thomas Goldstein, a prominent Supreme Court litigator, described him as “the go-to lawyer for the business community,” adding “of all the candidates, he is the one they knew best.” When Roberts was nominated, business groups lobbied senators as part of the campaign for his confirmation. Na época da nomeação de Roberts, Thomas Goldstein, um proeminente Supremo Tribunal litigator, descreveu-o como "o go-to advogado para a comunidade empresarial", acrescentando "a todos os candidatos, ele é o único que sabiam melhor." Quando Roberts foi nomeado, grupos empresariais pressionados senadores como parte de uma campanha para a sua confirmação.

The business community was also enthusiastic about A comunidade empresarial foi igualmente entusiasmado com Samuel Alito Samuel Alito , whose 15-year record as an appellate judge showed a consistent skepticism of claims against large corporations. , Cujos 15 anos de registro como um recurso juiz mostrou uma consistente ceticismo de reclamações contra grandes corporações. Ted Frank of the American Enterprise Institute predicted at the time of the nomination that if Alito replaced O’Connor, he and Roberts would bring about a rise in business cases before the Supreme Court. Ted Frank do American Enterprise Institute previa na altura da nomeação que se Alito substituído O'Connor, ele e Roberts traria cerca de um aumento nos negócios casos perante o Supremo Tribunal. Frank’s prediction was soon vindicated. Frank's prediction logo foi justificado.

“There wasn’ta great deal of interest in classic business cases in the last few years of the Rehnquist Court,” Carter Phillips, a partner at Sidley Austin and a leading Supreme Court business advocate, told me. "Há não era um grande interesse no negócio clássico casos nos últimos anos do Rehnquist Court", Carter Phillips, um sócio da Sidley Austin e um líder Supremo Tribunal negócios advogado, me disse. In 2004, Judge Richard Posner, a founder of the law-and-economics movement, argued that the Rehnquist Court’s emphasis on headline-grabbing constitutional cases had politicized it, and called on the court to hear more business cases. Em 2004, juiz Richard Posner, uma das fundadoras da lei-e-Economia circulação, alegou que o Tribunal de Rehnquist ênfase em manchete agarrando-constitucional casos ela tinha politizada, e exortou o tribunal de ouvir mais negócios casos. The Roberts court has unambiguously answered the call. O tribunal tem inequivocamente Roberts respondeu ao apelo. As Phillips told me, Roberts “is more interested in those issues and understands them better than his predecessor did.” Como me disse Phillips, Roberts "estão mais interessados nessas questões e compreende-los melhor do que o seu antecessor fez."

IV. IV.

Exactly how successful has the Chamber of Commerce been at the Supreme Court? Exatamente como sucesso tem sido a Câmara de Comércio, no Supremo Tribunal? Although the court is currently accepting less than 2 percent of the 10,000 petitions it receives each year, the Chamber of Commerce’s petitions between 2004 and 2007 were granted at a rate of 26 percent, according to Scotusblog. Embora o tribunal está a aceitar menos de 2 por cento dos 10000 petições que recebe cada ano, a Câmara de Comércio de petições entre 2004 e 2007 foram concedidos a uma taxa de 26 por cento, de acordo com Scotusblog. And persuading the Supreme Court to hear a case is more than half the battle: Richard Lazarus, a law professor at Georgetown who also represents environmental clients before the court, recently ran the numbers and found that the court reverses the lower court in 65 percent of the cases it agrees to hear; and when the petitioner is represented by the elite Supreme Court advocates routinely hired by the chamber, the success rate rises to 75 percent. E convencendo o Supremo Tribunal para conhecer de um caso for superior a metade da batalha: Richard Lazarus, um professor de Direito em Georgetown, que também representa ambiental clientes perante o tribunal, decorreu recentemente os números e constatou que o tribunal inverte o tribunal inferior em 65 por cento dos Os casos que concorda em ouvir, e quando o requerente for representado pela elite Supremo Tribunal defende rotineiramente contratado pela câmara, a taxa de sucesso sobe para 75 por cento.

Faced with these daunting numbers, the progressive antagonists of big business are understandably feeling beleaguered and outgunned. Confrontado com estes números assustadores, a progressiva antagonistas das grandes empresas estão compreensivelmente sentimento sitiadas e outgunned. “The fight before the court is generally not an even one,” said David Vladeck, who once worked for the Public Citizen Litigation Group and now teaches law at Georgetown. "A luta no tribunal, geralmente não é um mesmo um", disse David Vladeck, uma vez que trabalhava para o grupo Public Citizen Contencioso e agora ensina lei em Georgetown. “There’s us on one side, with a brief or two, and industry on the other side, with a well-coordinated campaign of 10 or 12 briefs, with each one written by a member of the elite Supreme Court bar that address an issue in enormous depth.” He added, ruefully, “You admire their handiwork, but it’s frustrating as hell to deal with.” "Há nos de um lado, com uma ou duas breves, e na indústria, por outro lado, com uma bem coordenada campanha de 10 ou 12 mandatos, com cada um escrito por um membro da elite Supremo Tribunal bar que resolver um Emissão de enorme profundidade. "Ele acrescentou, ruefully," Você admirar as suas obras, mas é frustrante como inferno para lidar com eles. "

To gauge the degree of the frustration, I recently paid a visit to Ralph Nader, a few weeks before he announced his most recent campaign for president of the United States. Para medir o grau de frustração, eu pago recentemente uma visita a Ralph Nader, algumas semanas antes de ele anunciou sua mais recente campanha para presidente dos Estados Unidos. It was a surprise to find that his office, the Center for Study of Responsive Law, shares an address in a grand building with the Carnegie Institution for Science. Foi uma surpresa ao descobrir que seu escritório, o Centro de Estudos de Direito Responsive, partilha um endereço de um grande edifício com a Carnegie Institution de Ciências. But the office itself, reassuringly, is buried on the ground floor, where Nader received me at a conference table surrounded by file cabinets stuffed with faded back issues of Mother Jones and The Nation. Mas o próprio escritório, reassuringly, é enterrado no piso térreo, onde Nader recebeu-me numa conferência mesa cercada por arquivo gabinetes recheadas com desbotada voltar questões da Matriz Jones e The Nation.

Nader was uncontrite about his 2000 run against Nader foi uncontrite cerca de correr contra o seu 2000 Al Gore Al Gore — which is often credited with helping George W. Bush win the presidency — and he insisted that because Clinton appointed justices like Breyer, Gore would have done the same. -- Que é muitas vezes creditado ajudando com George W. Bush ganhar a Presidência - e ele insistiu que porque Clinton nomeou como justices Breyer, Gore teria feito o mesmo. “Breyer hasn’t been worse than I feared, because I had real concern when he was nominated,” Nader told me. "Breyer não foi pior do que eu temia, porque eu tinha verdadeira preocupação quando ele foi nomeado", disse-me Nader. He conceded that, like Breyer, Democratic justices appointed by President Ele admitiu que, como Breyer, Democrática conselheiros nomeados pelo Presidente John Kerry John Kerry would presumably have been better on civil rights and liberties than John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Ia presumivelmente ter sido melhor sobre os direitos civis e liberdades do que John Roberts e Samuel Alito. Nevertheless, he disparaged Breyer as a “deregulation quasi-ideologue” who was able to weave a “tapestry of illusion” in his arguments by dealing in abstractions. No entanto, ele disparaged Breyer como um "quase-ideologue desregulamentação", que foi capaz de tecer uma "tapeçaria de ilusão" em seus argumentos pela negociação de abstrações.

The main casualty of the 2000 run, Nader said, is that he is no longer collaborating with America’s trial lawyers. A principal vítima de correr de 2000, Nader disse, é que ele já não está colaborando com a América do julgamento advogados. They would ordinarily be his natural allies in representing consumer interests, but they donated heavily to Gore’s campaign. Eles teriam normalmente ser seus aliados naturais nos representando os interesses dos consumidores, mas que doaram fortemente para a campanha do Gore. After 2000, the trial lawyers “have been vitriolic,” Nader explained. Após 2000, o julgamento os advogados ", foram vitriolic", explica Nader. He blames them for not using their money to help counteract the influence of the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups before the federal courts. Ele acusa-os para não usar o dinheiro para ajudar a contrariar a influência da Câmara de Comércio e de outros grupos empresariais perante o tribunal federal. In part as a result of their stinginess, he said, his colleagues at Public Citizen are underfinanced and worn down. Em parte como resultado da sua stinginess, disse ele, seus colegas na Public Citizen underfinanced e são usados para baixo. “There were some lawyers who left Public Citizen because they got tired of losing,” he said. "Houve alguns advogados que deixaram Public Citizen, porque eles tiveram cansado de perder", disse. “Everyone is desperately trying to hold on to whatever issues are left, and then they become demoralized and discouraged.” "Todo mundo está desesperadamente a tentar agarrar ao quaisquer questões estão à esquerda, e então eles se tornam demoralized e desencorajado".

Thirty years after the Chamber of Commerce founded its litigation center to counteract his influence, Nader all but conceded defeat in the battle for the Supreme Court. Trinta anos após a Câmara de Comércio fundou seu contencioso centro para neutralizar sua influência, Nader todos, mas admitiu derrota na batalha pelo Supremo Tribunal. With the decline of economic populism in Congress, the weakening of trade unions and the rise of globalization, the political climate, he lamented, was passing him by. Com o declínio econômico do populismo no Congresso, o enfraquecimento dos sindicatos e do aumento da globalização, o clima político, ele lamented, estava passando por ele. “I recall a comment by Eugene Debs,” Nader said, looking at me intensely. "Lembro um comentário por Eugene Debs," disse Nader, olhando-me intensamente. “He said: The American people live in a country where they can have almost anything they want. "Ele disse: O povo americano viver num país onde se pode ter quase tudo que eles querem. And my regret is that it seems that they don’t want much of anything at all.” Eo meu lamento é que parece que eles não querem muito de alguma coisa. "

Nader chuckled quietly and shook his head. Nader chuckled calmamente e abalou sua cabeça. “I say ditto.” "Digo idem".

V. V.

If there is an anti-Nader — a crusading lawyer passionately devoted to the pro-business cause — it is Theodore Olson. Se existe um anti-Nader - uma cruzada advogado apaixonadamente dedicada à pro-business causar - é Theodore Olson. One of the most influential Supreme Court advocates and a former solicitor general under President George W. Bush, Olson is best known for his winning argument before the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore in 2000. Um dos mais influentes Supremo Tribunal advogados e um ex-advogado geral sob a presidência de George W. Bush, Olson é melhor conhecido por seu argumento antes de ganhar o Supremo Tribunal de Bush v. Gore, em 2000. But Olson has devoted most of his energies in private practice to changing the legal and political climate for American business. Mas Olson dedicou a maior parte de suas energias no sector privado para mudar o clima político e jurídico para as empresas americanas. According to his peers in the elite Supreme Court bar, he more than anyone else is responsible for transforming the approach to one of the most important legal concerns of the American business community: punitive damages awarded to the victims of corporate negligence. De acordo com seus pares na elite Supremo Tribunal bar, que mais do que ninguém é responsável por transformar a abordagem de um dos mais importantes legal preocupações da comunidade empresarial americana: punitivas atribuídas às vítimas de negligência corporativas.

Punitive damages — money awarded by civil juries on top of any awarded for actual harm that victims have suffered — are designed to penalize especially egregious acts of corporate misconduct resulting from malice or greed, and to deter similar wrongdoing in the future. Punitivas - verbas atribuídas pelas civil júris em cima de quaisquer danos reais concedidos para que as vítimas sofreram - são projetados para punir especialmente flagrantes actos de má conduta das empresas resultantes de malícia ou ganância, e para dissuadir irregularidades semelhantes no futuro. In the 19th century, courts generally demanded a clear assignment of fault in cases where victims sued for injuries caused by malfunctioning products. No século 19, os tribunais geralmente exigia uma clara atribuição de culpa, nos casos em que as vítimas processado por danos causados por produtos avaria. It was hard for plaintiffs to recover in personal-injury cases unless the corporation was obviously at fault. Foi difícil para demandantes de recuperação em lesões pessoais-casos, a menos que a corporação estava obviamente a culpa. But in the 20th century, in liability cases involving a rapidly expanding class of potentially dangerous products like cars, drugs and medical devices, courts increasingly applied a standard of “strict liability,” which held that manufacturers should pay whether or not they were directly at fault. Mas, no século 20, em casos que envolvam responsabilidade uma rápida expansão classe de um produto potencialmente perigoso como carros, medicamentos e dispositivos médicos, cada vez mais tribunais aplicar um padrão de "responsabilidade rigorosa", a qual considerou que os fabricantes devem pagar ou não terem sido directamente em Culpa.

The animating idea was that manufacturers were in the best position to prevent accidents by improving their products with better design and testing. A animação idéia era que os fabricantes estavam em melhor posição para prevenir acidentes através da melhoria dos seus produtos com melhor design e testes. They and their insurance companies (rather than society as a whole) would shoulder the costs of accidents, thus giving them an incentive to make their products safer. Eles e as suas companhias de seguros (e não da sociedade como um todo) seria ombro os custos dos acidentes, dando-lhes assim um incentivo para tornar os seus produtos mais seguros. Encouraged by Ralph Nader’s book, “Unsafe at Any Speed,” published in 1965, courts began to see car accidents as predictable events that better car design could have prevented. Incentivada por Ralph Nader do livro, "Inseguro em Qualquer Speed", publicado em 1965, os tribunais começaram a ver acidentes de viação como previsível eventos que melhor carro design poderia ter evitado. In 1968, for example, a federal court held that car manufacturers could be sued for failing to make cars safe enough for drivers to survive crashes, even if the driver was at fault for the crash.

A series of well-publicized awards in the 1980s and ’90s culminated in the largest punitive damage award in American history the $5 billion levied against Exxon after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. This was hardly typical: the median punitive award actually fell to $50,000 in 2001 from $63,000 in 1992. This was hardly typical: the median punitive award actually fell to $50000 in 2001 from $63000 in 1992. Nevertheless, critics like Olson claimed that multimillion-dollar punitive-damage verdicts were threatening the health of the economy. They resolved to fight back on several fronts. In his first Supreme Court argument, in 1986, Olson set out the broad contours of his argument: for most of English and American history, private litigants were entitled to be compensated for whatever damages they suffered, including pain and suffering, but any public wrongs like the failure of American business to make cars safer by adopting air bags should be addressed by legislation or regulation, not by the courts. In his first Supreme Court argument, in 1986, Olson set out the broad contours of his argument: for most of English and American history, private litigants were entitled to be compensated for whatever damages they suffered, including pain and suffering, but any public wrongs like the failure of American business to make cars safer by adopting air bags should be addressed by legislation or regulation, not by the courts.

Olson decided that his clients deserved not just a lawyer who could argue a case but a lawyer who could change the political culture. “You had to attack it in a broad-scale way in the legislatures, in the arena of public opinion and in the courts,” he told me recently. “I felt the business community had to approach this in a holistic way.” He set out, in lectures and op-ed pieces, to publicize especially egregious examples. The poster child for punitive-damage abuse, widely derided in TV and radio ads paid for by the business community, was a New Mexico grandmother who, in 1994, was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages when she scalded herself with hot McDonald’s coffee. The poster child for punitive-damage abuse, widely derided in TV and radio ads paid for by the business community, was a New Mexico grandmother who, in 1994, was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages when she scalded herself with hot McDonald’s coffee . Consumer advocates countered that she had originally asked for $20,000 for medical expenses, which McDonald’s refused to pay, and the award appeared to have the effect of persuading McDonald’s to serve its coffee at a safer temperature. Consumer advocates countered that she had originally asked for $20000 for medical expenses, which McDonald’s refused to pay, and the award appeared to have the effect of persuading McDonald’s to serve its coffee at a safer temperature. Nonetheless, the campaign to vilify plaintiffs’ lawyers has been effective enough that the American Association of Trial Lawyers recently changed its name to the fuzzier American Association for Justice.

The business community made other inroads against punitive damages. Corporations financed campaigns against pro-punitive-damage state judges who had been elected with the assistance of large contributions from plaintiffs’ lawyers. The business community also helped persuade more than 30 states to either impose caps on punitive-damage awards or direct substantial portions of the awards to be paid into special state funds. In 1996, it helped persuade the Republican Congress, led by Newt Gingrich , to pass legislation that would cap punitive-damage awards in product-liability cases in every state court in the country. But in 1996, President Clinton, with what must have been perverse pleasure, vetoed the bill on the grounds that it violated principles of federalism and states rights to which conservatives claimed to be devoted.

Thwarted by Clinton, and unable to persuade Congress to override the veto, opponents of punitive damages turned their attention back to the Supreme Court, looking for a victory they were unable to win in the political arena. Here, they were remarkably successful. As late as 1991, the court had refused to impose limits on a large punitive-damage award. But in a case in 1996, the court held for the first time that punitive-damage awards had to be proportional to the actual damage incurred by the plaintiff. The case involved a man who said he was deceived by BMW when it sold him a supposedly “new” car that was, in fact, used and had received a $300 touch-up job. The court, in a 5-4 opinion, overturned a $2 million punitive-damage award as “grossly excessive.” In 2003, the court clarified what it meant: a single-digit ratio between punitive damages and compensatory damages was likely to be acceptable. The court, in a 5-4 opinion, overturned a $2 million punitive-damage award as “grossly excessive.” In 2003, the court clarified what it meant: a single-digit ratio between punitive damages and compensatory damages was likely to be acceptable .

Last year, the business community watched with anticipation as Roberts and Alito revealed their views about punitive damages. The case involved the estate of a heavy smoker who sued Philip Morris for deceitfully distributing a “poisonous and addictive substance.” A jury had awarded the estate $821,000 in compensatory damages and $79.5 million in punitive damages — a ratio of about 100 to 1. The case involved the estate of a heavy smoker who sued Philip Morris for deceitfully distributing a “poisonous and addictive substance.” A jury had awarded the estate $821000 in compensatory damages and $79.5 million in punitive damages — a ratio of about 100 to 1. In a 5-4 opinion written by Breyer, the court held that it was unconstitutional for a jury to use punitive damages to punish a company for its conduct toward similarly affected individuals who are not party to the lawsuit.

This spring, the court will decide the Exxon Valdez punitive-damage case, which many consider the culmination of the business community’s decades-long campaign against punitive damages. In 1989, the Exxon Valdez tanker, whose captain had a history of alcoholism, ran into a reef and punctured the hull; 11 million gallons of oil leaked onto the coastline of Prince William Sound. A jury handed down a $5 billion punitive-damage award.

After the verdict, Exxon began providing money for academic research to support its claim that the award for damages was excessive. It financed some of the country’s most prominent scholars on both sides of the political spectrum, including the Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman and Cass Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago. (Sunstein says he accepted only travel grants, not research support, from Exxon; and Kahneman stresses that the financing had no influence on the substance of his work.) In a 2002 book, “Punitive Damages: How Juries Decide,” Sunstein studied hundreds of mock-jury deliberations and concluded that jurors are unpredictable and often irrational in punitive-damage cases. (Sunstein says he accepted only travel grants, not research support, from Exxon; and Kahneman stresses that the financing had no influence on the substance of his work.) In a 2002 book, “Punitive Damages: How Juries Decide,” Sunstein studied hundreds of mock-jury deliberations and concluded that jurors are unpredictable and often irrational in punitive-damage cases. Jury deliberations, he found, increase the unpredictability, as well as the dollar amount of the final awards. Sunstein concluded that a system of civil fines determined by experts, rather than punitive damages determined by juries, might be more sensible. When Exxon appealed the $5 billion verdict in 2006, it was reduced by an appellate court to $2.5 billion. The reduced verdict is once again being challenged as excessive.

Walter Dellinger, the lawyer now arguing Exxon’s case before the Supreme Court, is no Republican activist. Like Sunstein, he is one of the most respected Democratic constitutional scholars, as well as a former acting solicitor general for President Clinton. Last month, in his argument before the court, Dellinger argued that because Exxon has already paid $3.4 billion in fines, cleanup costs and compensation connected with the Exxon Valdez spill, and because it didn’t act out of malice or greed in failing to monitor the alcoholic captain, additional punitive damages would serve no “public purpose.” Last month, in his argument before the court, Dellinger argued that because Exxon has already paid $3.4 billion in fines, cleanup costs and compensation connected with the Exxon Valdez spill, and because it didn’t act out of malice or greed in failing to monitor the alcoholic captain, additional punitive damages would serve no “public purpose.”

During the argument, Breyer noted that the $2.5 billion punitive damage award represents a less than 10-to-1 ratio between punitive damages and compensatory damages, which is in the single-digit range that the Supreme Court has considered acceptable in the past. But Breyer also seemed concerned at other points that punitive-damage awards have not been routine in maritime cases like this one, and that the award might create “a new world for the shipping industry.” Alito, who owns Exxon Mobil stock, did not participate, and because a tie would affirm the $2.5 billion punitive-damage award, the plaintiffs who are opposing Exxon need only four votes to prevail. But Breyer also seemed concerned at other points that punitive-damage awards have not been routine in maritime cases like this one, and that the award might create “a new world for the shipping industry.” Alito, who owns Exxon Mobil stock, did not participate, and because a tie would affirm the $2.5 billion punitive-damage award, the plaintiffs who are opposing Exxon need only four votes to prevail. But whether Dellinger gets five votes, a significant triumph is already behind him: he persuaded the court to take the case in the first place.

VI.

Ted Olson and the Chamber of Commerce aren’t only trying to persuade the Supreme Court to cut back on large punitive-damage awards; they’re also arguing that consumers injured by dangerous or defective medical devices and drugs in some cases shouldn’t be able to file product-liability suits at all. Ted Olson and the Chamber of Commerce aren’t only trying to persuade the Supreme Court to cut back on large punitive-damage awards; they’re also arguing that consumers injured by dangerous or defective medical devices and drugs in some cases shouldn’t be able to file product-liability suits at all. Because there is no national product-liability law that allows federal suits for personal injuries, consumers who are injured by, say, defective heart valves or artificial hips have to sue in state courts under state tort law. By asking the Supreme Court to prevent injured consumers from suing in state court, the business community, supported by the Bush administration, is trying to ensure that these consumers often have no legal remedy for their injuries. And the Supreme Court has been increasingly sympathetic to the business community’s arguments.

In a Supreme Court case Olson argued in December, he stood before the justices and argued that the manufacturers of defective medical devices — like heart valves, breast implants and defibrillators — should be immune from personal-liability suits because the federal Food and Drug Administration had approved the devices before they were marketed and the manufacturers had complied with all federal requirements. The case involved Charles Riegel, who had an angioplasty in 1996 during which the catheter used to dilate his coronary artery burst. Riegel, who needed advanced life support and emergency bypass surgery, eventually sued the manufacturer of the catheter, Medtronic. The company is colloquially referred to in the business community as “the pre-emption company” because of its practice of arguing that the Food and Drug Administration’s “premarket approval” of its products pre-empts product-liability suits in state courts.

The lawyer representing Riegel’s estate before the Supreme Court, Allison Zieve of Public Citizen, countered that Congress never intended to ban state product-liability suits when Senator Edward Kennedy sponsored a bill regulating medical devices in 1976. (Kennedy himself filed a brief in the case noting that he indeed intended no such thing.) “Lawyers think this is a close issue, but any time I talk to a nonlawyer about it, they’re shocked,” Zieve told me after the argument. (Kennedy himself filed a brief in the case noting that he indeed intended no such thing.) “Lawyers think this is a close issue, but any time I talk to a nonlawyer about it, they’re shocked,” Zieve told me after the argument. “People think: of course, if somebody makes a defective product you can sue.”

It’s one thing to argue that the federal government’s “premarket approval” of food, drugs and medical devices should pre-empt clearly inconsistent state laws and regulations. After all, if states imposed safety requirements that conflicted with the federal standard, the resulting regulatory confusion would make a national (and global) market impossible. But Olson’s claim that federal regulation of medical devices and drugs should also pre-empt product-liability suits under state tort law is one of the more creative and far-reaching legal arguments of the business groups that litigate before the Supreme Court.

This type of argument arose out of the tobacco litigation of the 1980s and ’90s, which culminated in a $206 billion settlement paid by the top tobacco companies to a consortium of 46 state attorneys general in exchange for dropping tort suits against the companies. The tobacco litigation began modestly: in 1983, Rose Cipollone, a New Jersey woman dying of lung cancer, sued several of the country’s largest tobacco companies for their failure to give adequate warnings about the dangers of smoking. After spending tens of millions of dollars fighting the verdict, the companies decided to take their defense to the next level. They argued that because the federal government required cigarette companies to have warning labels, tobacco companies couldn’t be subject to tort suits in state courts. Jury verdicts, they argued, are no less a form of regulation than laws explicitly adopted by state legislatures.

In a decision in 1992, the Supreme Court endorsed part of the companies’ argument. The decision unleashed a torrent of similar “pre-emption” claims by the manufacturers of dangerous drugs, defective medical devices and cars without air bags. And after the election of President Bush in 2000, the business community’s crusade was aggressively supported by the White House. At the same time that the White House was scaling back on federal health-and-safety enforcement, it insisted that consumers should not be able to sue federally regulated industries in state court. Bush appointed as the general counsel of the Food and Drug Administration a former drug- and tobacco-company lawyer named Daniel Troy. With Troy’s support, the FDA reversed its position, held for 25 years, and argued for the first time that its premarket approval of medical devices should prevent injured consumers from bringing product-liability suits in state court.

After her Supreme Court argument in the Medtronic case, Zieve told me she wasn’t sure what to expect. Until the arrival of Chief Justice Roberts, groups like Public Citizen had found that they had a better chance of winning pre-emption cases before the Supreme Court than in the lower courts. But during the first two years of the Roberts Court, the justices had decided two pre-emption cases in favor of the corporate defendants.

The trend has continued. On Feb. 21, the Supreme Court handed Zieve a crushing defeat: an 8-1 opinion immunizing the makers of defective medical devices from product-liability suits. The lone dissent was written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who objected that Congress could not have intended such a “radical curtailment” of state personal-injury suits when it regulated medical devices in 1976. Ginsburg, who is devoted to liberal judicial restraint, has consistently opposed efforts to second-guess punitive-damage awards or expand federal pre-emption. I called Zieve soon after the Supreme Court issued its opinion, and she sounded shocked. “It’s really unfathomable to me,” she said. “I wasn’t sure that this was a business-friendly court, but now I’m finding it harder not to view it that way.” Zieve said that, as a result of the decision, “I think the industry will keep unsafe devices on the market longer and be slower to improve products.” “I wasn’t sure that this was a business-friendly court, but now I’m finding it harder not to view it that way.” Zieve said that, as a result of the decision, “I think the industry will keep unsafe devices on the market longer and be slower to improve products.”

In the eyes of advocates like Zieve and Public Citizen, the public is now caught in a Catch-22: at the very moment that agencies like the FDA are being strongly reproved by critics — including the agency’s own internal science board — for being unwilling or unable to protect public health, the court is making it harder for people to receive compensation for the injuries that result. In the eyes of advocates like Zieve and Public Citizen, the public is now caught in a Catch-22: at the very moment that agencies like the FDA are being strongly reproved by critics — including the agency’s own internal science board — for being unwilling or unable to protect public health, the court is making it harder for people to receive compensation for the injuries that result. On rare occasions, the Roberts Court has held that the Bush administration’s deregulatory efforts circumvent the will of Congress — like the 5-4 decision last year holding that the Environmental Protection Agency acted capriciously when it adopted a rule that said it had no legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases. On rare occasions, the Roberts Court has held that the Bush administration’s deregulatory efforts circumvent the will of Congress — like the 5-4 decision last year holding that the Environmental Protection Agency acted capriciously when it adopted a rule that said it had no legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases. But by and large, the Supreme Court defers to agencies that refuse to regulate public health and safety. “The industry has a lot of money, and they can routinely hire the biggest names in the biggest firms, while we’re doing it on our own,” Zieve told me. “We don’t charge anything — we’re free. It didn’t cost $250,000 to get us to write the brief.” It didn’t cost $250000 to get us to write the brief.”

VII.

The Supreme Court is unlikely to reconsider its pro-business outlook anytime soon. Nevertheless, there are several currents in American political life that run counter to the court, even if they may not be strong enough, or suitably directed, to reverse it. There are, for example, economic populists in both political parties — John Edwards Democrats and Mike Huckabee Republicans, to cite just two types — who express concern about growing economic inequality and corporate corruption, and blame unchecked corporate power for America’s escalating economic problems. These populists tend to be from the working and middle classes rather than the professional classes, and their numbers may be growing. In recent Pew surveys, 65 percent of Americans agreed that corporations make excessive profits — the highest number in 20 years. Moreover, about half the country now asserts that America is divided on economic lines into two groups — the “haves” and “have nots” — up from only 26 percent two decades ago. And the number of Americans who view themselves as “have nots” has doubled to 34 percent today from 17 percent in 1988. Responding to pressures from this demographic, a Democratic Congress — bolstered by states-rights conservatives — might well try to pass legislation to counteract the court’s recent decisions barring product-liability suits for defective medical devices.

What about the executive branch? It seems unlikely that John McCain , if he were elected president, would push back against the court: he has already pledged to appoint “judges of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito,” rather than justices more devoted to states rights, like Scalia and Thomas. As for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, both have sounded increasingly populist notes in an effort to attract union and blue-collar supporters, ratcheting up their attacks on corporate wealth and power, singling out the drug, oil and health-insurance industries and promising to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. and Hillary Clinton, both have sounded increasingly populist notes in an effort to attract union and blue-collar supporters, ratcheting up their attacks on corporate wealth and power, singling out the drug, oil and health-insurance industries and promising to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. But despite their rhetoric, it is not clear that either candidate would actually appoint justices any more populist than Bill Clinton’s nominees. “I would be stunned to find an anti-business appointee from either of them,” Cass Sunstein, who is a constitutional adviser to Obama, told me. “There’s not a strong interest on the part of Obama or Clinton in demonizing business, and you wouldn’t expect to see that in their Supreme Court nominees.”

Still, the possibility does exist. If the economy continues to decline and blue-collar voters end up being crucial in the election, a Democratic president might appoint an economic populist to the Supreme Court as a kind of payback. Earlier this month, on the campaign trail in Ohio, Obama mentioned Earl Warren, who served as governor of California before becoming chief justice, as a model of the kind of justice he hoped to appoint. “I want people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through,” Obama said. He praised Warren for understanding that segregation was wrong because of the stigma it attached to blacks, rather than because of the precise nature of its sociological impact. Appointing a former politician to the court would almost certainly introduce a more populist element: the Supreme Court that in 1954 decided Brown v. Board of Education included, in addition to a former governor, three former senators, a former Securities and Exchange Commission member and two former attorneys general. Appointing a former politician to the court would almost certainly introduce a more populist element: the Supreme Court that in 1954 decided Brown v. Board of Education included, in addition to a former governor, three former senators, a former Securities and Exchange Commission member and two former attorneys general. (By contrast, the Roberts court is composed of nine former judges.)

Whatever happens in November, Robin Conrad says the Chamber of Commerce is prepared to lobby as hard as ever for the appointment of pro-business justices. “If we do have a Democrat president, and that president has opportunities to nominate to the court,” she said in our meeting as I glanced at her Hillary Clinton action figure, “we want to be able to express ourselves and work with that president.” Regardless of how many justices retire in the next presidential term, Conrad is confident that, having helped to transform the Supreme Court in less than 30 years, she and her colleagues can assure American business of a sympathetic hearing for decades to come. “If we do have a Democrat president, and that president has opportunities to nominate to the court,” she said in our meeting as I glanced at her Hillary Clinton action figure, “we want to be able to express ourselves and work with that president .” Regardless of how many justices retire in the next presidential term, Conrad is confident that, having helped to transform the Supreme Court in less than 30 years, she and her colleagues can assure American business of a sympathetic hearing for decades to come.

When I told Conrad that Ralph Nader told me that lawyers were leaving Public Citizen because they were tired of losing, she achieved a look of earnest concern. “I hope if they feel they’ve lost,” she said, “they lost for a good reason — not because they’ve been overpowered or muscled by the big, bad business community, but they’ve lost because reason won.”

Conrad looked at me squarely, and then added, “I guess if Ralph Nader wants to say we did him in” — she paused to weigh her words — “so be it.”

Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, is a frequent contributor to the magazine. He is the author, most recently, of “The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America.”

Comment on 'How Corporations Took Over The Supreme Court' :

RSS TrackBack URL

Related News: