

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
A U.S. appeals court on Monday "inexplicably" sided with oil giant Chevron in a massive case over its legacy of pollution in the Amazon.
Chevron persuaded the court to block enforcement of an $8.65 billion judgment delivered by Ecuador against the energy company for rainforest damage.
The three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York agreed with a March 2014 ruling by U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan that found the judgment had been obtained through bribery, coercion, and fraud--a decision that astonished environmental rights activists following the case.
The decision is unlikely to end the legal battle altogether, however, as the court also noted that Kaplan's ruling did not invalidate the Ecuadorean judgment or prevent its enforcement outside of the United States.
Karen Hinton, the American spokesperson for the Ecuadoreans, called it "a sad day for the U.S. justice system."
"As disappointed as we are, this ruling will not deter the Ecuadoreans, their lawyers and their supporters from aggressively seeking justice in Canada and in other countries where litigation is underway to seize Chevron assets," Hinton said.
In a tweet, the activist group Amazon Watch stated, "Justice denied as US Appeals court inexplicably upholds verdict based on bribed testimony & sides w/gross polluter @chevron over Ecuadorians."
Calling the decision "absurd," the group also said it "dealt a blow against free speech & corporate accountability everywhere."
The lawyer in the case, U.S.-based Steven Donziger, has attempted to hold Chevron accountable for water and soil contamination in the Amazon from 1964 to 1992. He has chased after the fossil fuel giant for more than two decades.
An attorney for Donziger, Deepak Gupta, said Monday, "Never before has a U.S. court allowed someone who lost a case in another country to come to the U.S. to attack a foreign court's damages award. The decision hands well-heeled corporations a template for avoiding legal accountability anywhere in the world. And it throws the entire international judgment enforcement framework out the window."
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
A U.S. appeals court on Monday "inexplicably" sided with oil giant Chevron in a massive case over its legacy of pollution in the Amazon.
Chevron persuaded the court to block enforcement of an $8.65 billion judgment delivered by Ecuador against the energy company for rainforest damage.
The three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York agreed with a March 2014 ruling by U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan that found the judgment had been obtained through bribery, coercion, and fraud--a decision that astonished environmental rights activists following the case.
The decision is unlikely to end the legal battle altogether, however, as the court also noted that Kaplan's ruling did not invalidate the Ecuadorean judgment or prevent its enforcement outside of the United States.
Karen Hinton, the American spokesperson for the Ecuadoreans, called it "a sad day for the U.S. justice system."
"As disappointed as we are, this ruling will not deter the Ecuadoreans, their lawyers and their supporters from aggressively seeking justice in Canada and in other countries where litigation is underway to seize Chevron assets," Hinton said.
In a tweet, the activist group Amazon Watch stated, "Justice denied as US Appeals court inexplicably upholds verdict based on bribed testimony & sides w/gross polluter @chevron over Ecuadorians."
Calling the decision "absurd," the group also said it "dealt a blow against free speech & corporate accountability everywhere."
The lawyer in the case, U.S.-based Steven Donziger, has attempted to hold Chevron accountable for water and soil contamination in the Amazon from 1964 to 1992. He has chased after the fossil fuel giant for more than two decades.
An attorney for Donziger, Deepak Gupta, said Monday, "Never before has a U.S. court allowed someone who lost a case in another country to come to the U.S. to attack a foreign court's damages award. The decision hands well-heeled corporations a template for avoiding legal accountability anywhere in the world. And it throws the entire international judgment enforcement framework out the window."
A U.S. appeals court on Monday "inexplicably" sided with oil giant Chevron in a massive case over its legacy of pollution in the Amazon.
Chevron persuaded the court to block enforcement of an $8.65 billion judgment delivered by Ecuador against the energy company for rainforest damage.
The three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York agreed with a March 2014 ruling by U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan that found the judgment had been obtained through bribery, coercion, and fraud--a decision that astonished environmental rights activists following the case.
The decision is unlikely to end the legal battle altogether, however, as the court also noted that Kaplan's ruling did not invalidate the Ecuadorean judgment or prevent its enforcement outside of the United States.
Karen Hinton, the American spokesperson for the Ecuadoreans, called it "a sad day for the U.S. justice system."
"As disappointed as we are, this ruling will not deter the Ecuadoreans, their lawyers and their supporters from aggressively seeking justice in Canada and in other countries where litigation is underway to seize Chevron assets," Hinton said.
In a tweet, the activist group Amazon Watch stated, "Justice denied as US Appeals court inexplicably upholds verdict based on bribed testimony & sides w/gross polluter @chevron over Ecuadorians."
Calling the decision "absurd," the group also said it "dealt a blow against free speech & corporate accountability everywhere."
The lawyer in the case, U.S.-based Steven Donziger, has attempted to hold Chevron accountable for water and soil contamination in the Amazon from 1964 to 1992. He has chased after the fossil fuel giant for more than two decades.
An attorney for Donziger, Deepak Gupta, said Monday, "Never before has a U.S. court allowed someone who lost a case in another country to come to the U.S. to attack a foreign court's damages award. The decision hands well-heeled corporations a template for avoiding legal accountability anywhere in the world. And it throws the entire international judgment enforcement framework out the window."