Supreme Court moves from health care to human rights

• Justices move amicably into new term
• Can corporations be sued overseas?
• When is a floating house a boat?

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court moved from last summer's historic health care decision Monday to more obscure issues of international human rights and maritime property rights as it opened its 2012 term.

There were no apparent hard feelings left over from the divisive 5-4 ruling in June upholding President Obama's health care law. Chief Justice John Roberts -- who sided with the court's four liberal justices on that case -- and his colleagues debated the new cases as if they had not finished the last term deeply divided.

First to hit the docket was a 10-year-old lawsuit that could determine the liability of corporations for human rights violations committed overseas under the Alien Tort Statute of 1789. While it involves claims of 12 Nigerian nationals against Royal Dutch Petroleum for atrocities committed in Nigeria by that country's military, it could have broad implications for American companies, U.S. foreign policy and citizens living abroad.

"The trend in the world today is towards universal justice for people ... and corporations that violate these kinds of norms," said Paul Hoffman, the attorney representing the plaintiffs in the case. "In fact, the United States has been the leader in that. Our government has proclaimed our leadership position to U.N. bodies and around the world."

The court appeared likely to limit corporate liability, however, as several conservative justices questioned whether corporations can be treated like people. They also wondered how a case involving foreign citizens and a foreign corporation overseas could be prosecuted under a U.S. law.

"Why does this case belong in the courts of the United States, when it has nothing to do with the United States other than the fact that a subsidiary of the defendant has a big operation here?" asked Justice Samuel Alito, echoing the concerns of several others.

The answer, some liberal justices said, could be that violators of human rights overseas are today's version of pirates, who have been subject to the statute because their crimes were committed on the high seas rather than a foreign country.

"If when the statute was passed it applied to pirates, the question to me is, who are today's pirates?" Justice Stephen Breyer said. "If Hitler isn't a pirate, who is? And if, in fact, an equivalent torturer or dictator who wants to destroy an entire race in his own country is not the equivalent of today's pirate, who is?"

Fearing implications for U.S. foreign policy, the Justice Department sided with the corporations in the case, arguing they should not be prosecuted. But because other cases in the future might merit prosecution, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli urged the justices to rule narrowly rather than set a sweeping precedent.

The justices also waded into a more obscure case that may force them to define the difference between a boat and a floating house -- if there is any difference.

The case involves the seizure and destruction of a floating house by the city of Riviera Beach, Fla., which deemed it a vessel that could break free of its moorings and cause damages. The implications, however, extend to floating casinos and restaurants.

The debate quickly devolved into what other floating objects could be called vessels and subjected to maritime law, including inner tubes, rafts and Styrofoam sofas.

"We've got to limit this somehow," Breyer said.