Did the Eighth Circuit err in denying dismissal based on international comity and in interpreting the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement as requiring U.S. courts to adjudicate foreign environmental tort claims?

QUESTION PRESENTED Over two thousand Peruvians allege harm from emissions of a metallurgical complex located in Peru, operated by a Peruvian corporation, and regulated by a Peruvian environmental program. But these Peruvians sued in Missouri, seeking to impose a Missouri duty of care on this Peruvian complex. The Peruvian government repeatedly protested that a Missouri court adjudicating a case about emissions levels allowed in Peru would be an affront to Peruvian sovereignty, including Peru’s right to regulate and control activities within its territory. That sovereignty is protected by the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA), which “[r]ecogniz[es] the sovereign right of each Party to establish its own levels of domestic environmental protection.” The TPA thus requires each Party to “provide ... access to remedies for violations of that Party’s environmental laws.” The questions presented are: 1. Did the Eighth Circuit err in denying dismissal based on international comity, where allowing a U.S. court to dictate Peruvian environmental standards is a grave affront to Peruvian sovereignty, and where allowing such a claim would threaten to open the doors of U.S. courts to foreign tort claims lacking any meaningful nexus to the United States? 2. Did the Eighth Circuit err in holding that the TPA’s language (found in many similar trade agreements) affirmatively requires U.S. courts to adjudicate foreign environmental tort claims?