Rio Tinto PLC v. Sarei
Court grants review, vacates Ninth Circuit judgment, and sends the case back for reconsideration under the Court’s recent Kiobel decision, forcing the lower court to reassess the lawsuit’s outcome.
Real-world impact
- Requires Ninth Circuit to reevaluate its decision under Kiobel
- Allows multiple amici, including a foreign government and business groups, to weigh in
- Outcome remains unsettled; remand could change the case result after further proceedings
Topics
Summary
Background
The Government of Australia and several other groups asked to file friend-of-the-court briefs, and the Court allowed those requests. Other amici granted leave included professors of international law, the Washington Legal Foundation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Foreign Trade Council. The case came to the Court on a petition to review a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court agreed to take the case.
Reasoning
The Court’s key procedural action addressed whether the Ninth Circuit’s judgment should remain in place given the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. The Court granted review, vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment, and remanded the case to that court for further consideration specifically in light of Kiobel. In effect, the Justices instructed the lower court to reassess its ruling under the guidance provided by the Kiobel decision.
Real world impact
The Ninth Circuit must reopen its analysis and may reach a different result after applying Kiobel. The immediate practical effect falls on the parties in this Ninth Circuit case and on other litigants and lower courts facing similar questions, who may see pending rulings revisited. Because the Supreme Court vacated and remanded rather than resolving the underlying merits, the outcome is not final and could change after further proceedings.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Kagan did not participate in the consideration or decision of the motions and the petition.
Questions, answered
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents). Try:
- “What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?”
- “How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?”
- “What are the practical implications of this ruling?”