Victory! Court Upholds Conflict Minerals Rule

Shreema Mehta's avatar
By Shreema Mehta

July 29, 2013


Glass Lewis

If you believe corporate accountability for human rights violations is a good thing, you'll love this news: Industry interest groups looking to tie up the Dodd Frank conflict minerals rule in court lost.

This week, a federal court upheld the SEC rule that requires corporations to publicly disclose whether the minerals they source have helped finance armed groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

As I've blogged about before, the SEC passed this rule in response to passage of the Dodd Frank Act, a major hunk of legislation on financial reform that included the disclosure requirement, enabling consumers to make sure their purchases do not fuel the unspeakable violence that has ravaged the DRC.

Out of the many claims made by the interest groups, which included the US Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers, perhaps one bizarre requirement is that the mere requirement to disclose sourcing that fuels mass murder violates the first amendment rights of corporations.

Thankfully the court rejected these claims, ruling that the conflict minerals rule "directly and materially advanced Congress’ interest in promoting peace and security in and around the DRC. "

As a key supporter of the rule, we applaud the protection of this important policy. As the court ruling notes:

"Congress believed that it could not “begin to solve the problems of eastern Congo without addressing where the armed groups are receiving their funding, mainly from the mining of a number of key conflict minerals.”

For more information:

Tagged with: international, dodd frank, congo, conflict minerals

comments powered by Disqus

On Twitter

Bare-Knuckled Advice From Veteran Lobbyist: ‘Win Ugly or Lose Pretty’ -- Energy Industry Talk Secretly Taped
Denton #fracking ban: reasonable regulation or property rights violation? | @DallasBizNews

On Facebook