African-American Reparation in the courts

Slavery was unconstitutional in the north. But that does not mean that some folks did not manage to practice in the slave trade. Descendant of slavery do not have to go South to find those who profited from the slave trade when seeking reparation.

"The defendants are companies or the successors to
companies that provided services, such as transportation,
finance, and insurance, to slaveowners. At least two of
the defendants were slaveowners; the predecessor of one
of the bank defendants once accepted 13,000 slaves as
collateral on loans and ended up owning 1,250 of them
when the borrowers defaulted, and the predecessor of
another defendant ended up owning 346 slaves, also as a
consequence of a borrower’s default. Even before the
Thirteenth Amendment, slavery was illegal in the northern
states, and the complaint charges that the defendants
were violating the laws of those states in transacting
with slaveowners. It also claims that there were occasional
enslavements long after the passage of the Thirteenth
Amendment and that some of the defendants
were complicit in those too. By way of relief, the complaint
seeks disgorgement to the class members of the
profits that the defendants obtained from their dealings
with slaveowners."

This court suggest the descendants will have many obstacle to overcome in getting the case to be heard.

"If one or more of the defendants
violated a state law by transporting slaves in 1850, and the
plaintiffs can establish standing to sue, prove the violation
despite its antiquity, establish that the law was
intended to provide a remedy (either directly or by providing
the basis for a common law action for conspiracy,
conversion, or restitution) to lawfully enslaved persons
or their descendants, identify their ancestors, quantify
damages incurred, and persuade the court to toll the
statute of limitations, there would be no further obstacle
to the grant of relief."

This court addressed four issues, if there was standing,if there was a political question before the federal court, if there was a harm to be remedied, and if the claim was time barred.

Hat tip to Indianalawblog