DC Circuit Court Says Conflict Minerals Disclosure Rule Violates First Amendment

conflict mineral

US companies struggling to determine and report to federal officials if their supply chains contain conflict minerals may have felt some relief this week when the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit struck down the federal government’s conflict mineral disclosure requirement, saying it violated the First Amendment.

Spend Matters recently reported on a new study that showed the majority of companies required to disclose conflict mineral supply chain information to the Securities and Exchange Commission actually are failing to do so. This SEC rule is flawed, the judge’s opinion said. Back in 2014 when it last considered the rule, the court said the requirement forces a company to criticize its own products and “confess blood on its hands.” The court affirmed this again this week. It did not, however, strike down the entire conflict minerals rule.

Our sister site MetalMiner reported on this news in more detail this week in its article DC Circuit Rules Against Disclosure Requirement in Conflict Minerals Rule Again, authored by MetalMiner Assistant Editor Jeff Yoders.

The court’s rulings did not overturn the entire Conflict Minerals Rule, it actually upheld requirements such as having companies investigate whether their products include the minerals and a requirement to file public reports on their investigations, a process that began last year,” Jeff wrote.

What does this recent court ruling mean for conflict mineral compliance? What moves will the SEC make from here? And how will corporations react? Head on over to MetalMiner to read more.

Share on Procurious

Discuss this:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.