Paid in full? A federal judge closes the door on a reparations suit.(news)(Charles R. Norgle)

Lionel Jean-Baptiste wasn't surprised when a white federal judge dismissed a lawsuit in July that had asked corporations to pay for past dealings in slavery.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

But Jean-Baptiste, the lead attorney for the descendants of slaves who had brought the case, didn't expect that, in addition to exhaustive legal arguments, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Norgle would share his personal view that reparations to slaves have already been paid. And that's what has left Jean-Baptiste intent on pushing forward--even as other observers declare the decision a major setback for the reparations movement.

"He did a lot of research, but he spun the history of the fight of Africans in this country to gain their rights in a way that met his needs," said Jean-Baptiste. The lawsuit was brought to federal court in Chicago in 2002. Nineteen plaintiffs from across the country accused Aetna. CSX, JP Morgan Chase and 14 other companies of "unjust enrichment" and crimes against humanity, noting how the firms' predecessors had owned, traded, insured or transported enslaved Africans. The suit asked the firms to disclose all of their involvement in slavery, set up a trust fund and pay an unspecified amount of restitution--making it the first major litigation to press private corporations for slavery reparations.

In response, the companies asked Norgle to dismiss the case, arguing that they shouldn't be held accountable for something that happened more than a century ago. The judge agreed with them. In early 2004, he ruled that the plaintiffs needed to show how they had personally suffered from the actions of the companies. Questions involving the historical and political rights of groups of people were matters for Congress, not the courts, he wrote. And he ruled that too much time had passed for the claims to move forward.

Norgle dismissed the case "without prejudice"--meaning that the plaintiffs could submit their suit again. They did, but their new complaint, filed in April 2004, wasn't that different. While several of the plaintiffs were by this time the official representatives of their families' estates, and their attorneys argued that a legal principle known as "replevin" entitled them to property that had once been taken unjustly, they still didn't show specific ties to the corporations.

On July 6, 2005, Norgle threw out the suit again, this time "with prejudice," or for good. Like the plaintiffs, he didn't change his legal reasoning the second time around. But he did devote more space to declaring his own views on reparations, arguing they've already been paid through the Civil War and subsequent legislation.