SCOTUS weighs child-slavery case against Nestlé USA, Cargill

WASHINGTON » The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday aboutwhetherU.S. chocolate companies should be held responsible for child slavery on the African farms fromwhich they buymost of their cocoa.

Six African men are seeking damages from Nestlé USA and Cargill, alleging that as children they were trafficked out ofMali, forced to work long hours on Ivory Coast cocoa farms and kept at night in locked shacks.

Their attorneys argue that the companies should have better monitored their cocoa suppliers in West Africa, where about two-thirds of the world’s cocoa is grown and child labor is widespread.

These “are former child slaves seeking compensation from two U.S. corporations which maintain a system of child slavery and forced labor in their Ivory Coast supply chain as a matter of corporate policy to gain a competitive advantage in theU.S. market,” the Malians’ attorney, Paul L. Hoffman, told the court. He asked the justices to “allow these former child slaves to have their day in court.”

Nestlé USA and Cargill have responded that they, too, deplore child slavery and trafficking, and that they have taken steps to eradicate such practices among their suppliers. Nestlé USA “firmly believes that traffickers deserve punishment,” the company said in court filings. “This case is not about any of that.”

The companies have asked theSupremeCourt to toss the lawsuit, arguing that courts in the United States are the wrong forum for the Malians’ complaint and that the applicable law permits such cases against individuals but not corporations. In the view of the companies, such cases ought to be filed not against the corporations but against the traffickers and farmers involved.

“This case is about a 15-year- old lawsuit brought against thewrong defendant, in the wrong place, and under the wrong statute,” according to the brief on behalf of Nestlé USA filed by Neal Katyal and other attorneys. “The truewrongdoers are the Malian and Ivorian traffickers, farmers, and overseers.”

On Tuesday, both sides faced skepticism from the justices.

“Mr. Katyal, many of your arguments lead to results that are pretty hard to take,” Justice Samuel Alito said.

Suppose, Alito continued, a U.S. corporation surreptitiously hired agents in Africa to kidnap children to enslave themon a plantation so that the corporation can buy cheap cocoa or coffee.

“You would say that the victims ... should be thrown out of court in the United States, where this corporation is headquartered and does business?” Alito asked.

Katyal answered, among other things, that the victims could sue in African courts or Congress could pass a law specific to such abuses.

Probing the arguments of the other side, however, the justices zeroed in onwhether the companies’ practices really amounted to “aiding and abetting” child slavery. Is simply buying cocoa from these farms enough?

“What counts as aiding and abetting for purposes of this statute?” Justice Stephen Breyer asked Hoffman, the Malians’ attorney. “When I read through your complaint, it seemed to me that all or virtually all of your complaint amounts to doing business with these people. They help pay for the farm. And that’s about it.”