A federal appeals court rejected most claims by slave descendants that they deserve reparations from some of the biggest US insurers, banks and transportation companies.
The 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on Wednesday a lower court ruling that slave descendants have no standing to sue for reparations based on injustices suffered by their ancestors and the statute of limitations ran out more than a century ago.
The court's 17-page decision, written by Judge Richard Posner for the three-judge panel, said statutes of limitations could be extended, but not for acts committed a century ago.
The panel also said the descendants lacked standing to file suit because their links to the slaves were distant.
"A person whose ancestor had been wronged a thousand years ago could sue on the ground that it was a continuing wrong and he is one of the victims," the court said. It said statutes of limitations could be extended in some cases but not for acts committed 100 years ago.
Slavery was abolished in the US in 1865.
But the court kept alive a slender portion of the suit, claiming that major US corporations may be guilty of consumer fraud if they hid past ties to slavery from their customers.
The lawsuit was a consolidation of 10 suits filed around the US and moved to Chicago. Slave descendants claim that big US corporations -- including such Wall Street giants as JP Morgan Chase, Aetna and Bank of America -- profited from slavery and should pay.
It argues that the companies insured and transported slaves and even issued loans to slaveholders so they could buy slaves.
US District Judge Charles Norgle Sr. had dismissed all the claims in the suit. He found that the descendants lacked standing and the statute of limitations had expired, but also said the issue was political and should not be worked out in a court.
While largely upholding Norgle's decision, the one exception the appeals court made was in keeping alive the consumer protection claims.
Descendants claim they have been injured by purchasing products from companies that concealed the fact that they or their predecessor companies somehow benefited from slavery.
In allowing the consumer-protection claims, the appeals court said it knew of no law saying a seller has "a general duty to disclose every discreditable fact about himself."
But it added that a seller who, fearing the loss of buyers who would object to some component in his product, "falsely represents that the product does not contain the component is guilty of fraud."
"We do not offer an opinion on the merits of the consumer protection claims, but merely reject the District Court's ruling that they are barred at the threshold," the appeals court said.
RSS