The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found a corporate regulation unconstitutional on April 14. The ruling stated that the Securities and Exchange Commission provision requiring corporations to report any use of conflict minerals obtained from mining companies in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and nine neighboring countries violated businesses’ First Amendment free speech rights. By overturning this provision, the U.S. Appeals Court struck down a law that could have played a role in decreasing the international contribution to human rights issues in the Congo and central Africa, and set a precedent for corporations to challenge other laws meant to protect domestic consumer health.

Conflict diamonds and minerals are mined and sold in order to fund militant groups waging civil wars and violent rebellions, most prominently in war-torn regions of Africa where torture, forced labor, sexual violence and use of child soldiers distinguished many of the conflicts. Pressure from consumers and human rights groups alike brought conflict diamonds under intense scrutiny, but many other minerals like those specified in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regulation — including tantalite, gold and tungsten — have continued to flow through international markets.

The regulation was put into the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010 to increase transparency and allow consumers to exercise discretion in their purchases. Although a small step forward, the regulation could have been a catalyst in discouraging use of conflict minerals, slowing the supply of funds to militant groups in central Africa and increasing pressure to end rampant violence and human rights violations.

Those who challenged the regulation — the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and the National Association of Manufacturers — were well aware that compulsory disclosure would likely hurt businesses that utilize conflict minerals. As U.S. courts have continually demonstrated, American values like fairness, equality and honesty have no place in American industry. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals echoes this assertion in a ruling that implies that compelling a business to condemn its own product and “confess blood on its hands” is a graver violation of basic rights than allowing the business to profit from the pain and suffering of others. Incentive to protect corporate profit has become paramount to the lives and safety of countless individuals who are harmed by the immoral conduct of businesses around the world.

For many, it may be difficult to understand the consequences of this ruling given that it most negatively affects individuals living thousands of miles away. The court’s preferences, however, also have serious ramifications for Americans in terms of consumer rights. A consumer should have the right to full disclosure from businesses that sell the products he chooses to consume. Unfortunately, in industries throughout this country’s free market, consumers are unaware of where products are made, who made them and how — or if — those laborers were compensated.

The same appellate court that reviewed the conflict minerals regulation is currently reviewing another case. This latest case was brought by various groups in the meat industry that are protesting a new U.S. Department of Agriculture regulation, which requires packaged meat labels to include the country where the animals were born, raised and slaughtered. In addition to citing raised costs, meat producers claim that the government lacks a compelling reason for overriding the businesses’ free speech rights and forcing them to make labels against their will. This trend of evasion has become very characteristic of the food industry.

 The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals — as well as others courts throughout the country that review cases like these — is in a position to impart restrictions that can help bend industry in favor of laborers and consumers. Our courts must demand that our country’s big corporations conduct business with integrity and honesty. They should not weakly fold to excuses of high costs and decreasing profits.

Nina Golshan is a deputy opinion editor. Email her at [email protected].