US/Supreme Court

From Wikispooks
< US
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Group.png US/Supreme Court  
(CourtSourcewatch Spartacus WebsiteRdf-icon.png
United States Supreme Court.jpg
A mock up of how the group might look given clearer display of corporate loyalties
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Formation1789
Parent organizationUS
HeadquartersWashington D.C.
LeaderChief Justice of the United States
John G. Roberts.jpg
Incumbent: John G. Roberts
Since 29 September 2005
Typelegal
Interest ofLinda Greenhouse

In June 2013 the US supreme court confirmed a federal appeals court ruling about Donald Rumsfeld by claiming that be cannot be held liable for any illegal actions of his subordinates. He was being sued for personally authorising "enhanced interrogation" techniques.[1][2]

Immunity for manufacturers of generic drugs

In a 5-4 vote on July 7, 2013, the US Supreme Court ruled that Karen Bartlett had no right to sue Mutual Pharma, after a drug they made, the generic anti-inflammatory drug Sulindac, caused her to develop toxic epidermal necrolysis as a side effect. A lower court awarded her $21 million in compensation, stating that “Because it is impossible for Mutual and other similarly situated manufacturers to comply with both state and federal law, New Hampshire's warning-based design-defect cause of action is pre-empted with respect to FDA-approved drugs sold in interstate commerce." Whiteout Press summarised the implications of this ruling as follows "In other words, if the FDA says something is safe, it doesn’t matter if that decision is wrong or the result of lies, fraud or deception on the part of the world’s pharmaceutical companies. And there’s no way to sue the FDA for being wrong and costing millions of unsuspecting Americans their lives."[3]

 

Legal Case

NamePlaintiff(s)Defendant(s)StartEndDescription
Clapper v. Amnesty International USAJames R. ClapperAmnesty International USA29 October 201226 February 2013James Clapper sought to dismiss Amnesty International's challenge of the Fisa Amendments Act. They Supreme Court ruled that dragnet surveillance could not be challenged since the plaintiffs were unlikely to be targets of surveillance - something that was revealed a few months later by the Edward Snowden leaks to be untrue. The decision appear to be nevertheless unchallenged.


References

  1. www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/supreme-court-donald-rumsfeld_n_3415124.html
  2. http://rt.com/usa/supreme-rumsfeld-vance-court-493/
  3. July 7, 2013Supreme Court rules Drug Companies exempt from Lawsuits