![]() Imagine if the government officials involved actually had something to hide, and were trying to cover it up. Although the documents here confirm that there was no impropriety, it still took five years and multiple FOIA requests to get that answer. Transparency about the extent to which corporate interests are motivating government officials is critical to ensuring public trust in government. But why did it take so long to confirm this? The DOJ documents reveal no improper conduct they show that he was in fact recused from the Kiobel decisions, as he should have been. While we continued to believe that the Senate should receive full information about whether his work as a government lawyer may have benefited his former corporate clients, didn’t oppose his nomination.Īs it turns out, Srinivasan did the right thing on the Kiobel case. Supreme Court following Justice Scalia’s death last year, we reassessed our evaluation of him. When he was considered a potential nominee for the U.S. On the bench, Judge Srinivasan has demonstrated he is a fair and thoughtful jurist who is not held captive by the interests of powerful corporations. ERI opposed that nomination, raising concerns about his record – which at that point demonstrated a commitment to corporate interests – and highlighting the need for transparency around his role in the Kiobel brief. Circuit Court of Appeals, widely seen as the second-most important federal court in the country. In 2013, with our FOIA requests still unanswered, Srinivasan was nominated and confirmed to the D.C. Srinivasan’s former corporate clients, like ExxonMobil, stood to benefit (and did benefit) from the government’s position in the second brief, and his involvement would have been a serious conflict of interest. We wanted to find out what happened, so we filed FOIA requests with DOJ and the State Department seeking communications showing who was involved in the decision-making surrounding the Kiobel brief, and specifically whether Srinivasan had influenced the government’s changed position in Kiobel, or whether he was recused. Immediately before this, Srinivasan was representing corporations being sued for human rights abuses, and had argued many of the same positions that Shell raised in the Kiobel case. ![]() 2 lawyer in that office – the Principal Deputy, second only to the Solicitor General. government’s interests are represented at the Supreme Court by the Solicitor General’s office, and it was hard for us to ignore that Srinivasan had recently become the No. Although the government had filed an amicus brief in 2011 supporting the victims, the second government brief changed course, elevating corporate interests over the rights of ordinary people. lawyers are putting the interests of the United States above the interests of their former corporate clients shouldn’t be so hard to come by.ĮarthRights International (ERI) raised questions in 2012 after the government filed a troubling brief supporting Shell in the lawsuit over the oil company’s responsibility for human rights abuses in Nigeria. Although the right outcome, and a welcome revelation, transparency about whether the top U.S. Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell), we finally received a response from the Department of Justice (DOJ) showing Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinavasan, who had previously represented corporations in similar cases, properly recused himself from working on the brief. ![]() ![]() Five years after filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request about the role played by certain lawyers in the U.S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |