In pro­mot­ing a pro­posed trade pact cov­er­ing 12 Pacif­ic Rim nations, Pres­i­dent Oba­ma has cast the ini­tia­tive as an instru­ment of equi­ty. The Trans-Pacif­ic Part­ner­ship would, in his words, ​“lev­el the play­ing field” and ​“give our work­ers a fair shot.” But crit­ics argue that with­in the hun­dreds of pages of eso­teric pro­vi­sions, the deal — like sim­i­lar ones before it — includes a glar­ing dou­ble stan­dard: It pro­vides legal rights to cor­po­ra­tions and investors that it does not extend to unions, pub­lic inter­est groups and individuals.

Canadian Finance Minister Joe Oliver said bank regulations passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis could be a violation of trade provisions under NAFTA—raising the prospect of banks using the tribunal process to try to get the federal government to eliminate those regulations.

Recent­ly leaked drafts of the agree­ment show the pact includes the kind of ​“Investor-State Dis­pute Set­tle­ment” (ISDS) pro­vi­sions writ­ten into most major trade deals passed since the North Amer­i­can Free Trade Agree­ment. Those pro­vi­sions allow com­pa­nies to use secre­tive inter­na­tion­al tri­bunals to sue sov­er­eign gov­ern­ments for dam­ages when those gov­ern­ments pass pub­lic-inter­est poli­cies that threat­en to cut into a corporation’s prof­its or seize a company’s property.

But also like past trade deals, the TPP is not expect­ed to allow unions and pub­lic-inter­est groups to bring their own suits in the same tri­bunals to com­pel gov­ern­ments to enforce labor, envi­ron­men­tal and human rights laws.

The dis­crep­an­cy is a delib­er­ate effort to make sure trade pol­i­cy includes a ​“tilt toward giant cor­po­ra­tions,” Sen. Eliz­a­beth War­ren, D‑Massachusetts, said.

“If a Viet­namese com­pa­ny with U.S. oper­a­tions want­ed to chal­lenge an increase in the U.S. min­i­mum wage, it could use ISDS,” War­ren wrote in a Wash­ing­ton Post op-ed in Feb­ru­ary. ​“But if an Amer­i­can labor union believed Viet­nam was allow­ing Viet­namese com­pa­nies to pay slave wages in vio­la­tion of trade com­mit­ments, the union would have to make its case in the Viet­namese courts.”

The Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion argues that con­cerns from TPP oppo­nents are exag­ger­at­ed because to date the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment has ​“nev­er once lost an ISDS case.”

But those oppo­nents counter by not­ing that those cas­es are on the rise across the globe. As the Unit­ed Nations report­ed recent­ly, ISDS cas­es ​“have pro­lif­er­at­ed in the past 10 – 15 years, with the over­all num­ber of known treaty-based arbi­tra­tions reach­ing 514.”

While trade deals include rhetoric say­ing the inter­na­tion­al tri­bunal process is not designed to under­mine pub­lic inter­est poli­cies, some of the cas­es brought by cor­po­ra­tions have direct­ly tar­get­ed those laws.

Philip Mor­ris, for exam­ple, has filed suits against Aus­tralia and Uruguay, which require health warn­ings on tobac­co prod­ucts. In the ISDS process, Philip Mor­ris is argu­ing that the require­ments expro­pri­ate its prop­er­ty, deny the com­pa­ny fair treat­ment and undu­ly cut into its profits.

Sim­i­lar­ly, a Swedish ener­gy firm has used ISDS to tar­get Ger­many’s restric­tions on coal-fired and nuclear pow­er plants, and Eli Lil­ly and Com­pa­ny is using the process to try to fight Canada’s efforts to lim­it drug patents and reduce the price of med­i­cine. Most recent­ly, Cana­di­an Finance Min­is­ter Joe Oliv­er said bank reg­u­la­tions passed in the wake of the 2008 finan­cial cri­sis could be a vio­la­tion of trade pro­vi­sions under NAF­TA, rais­ing the prospect of banks using the tri­bunal process to try to get the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment to elim­i­nate those regulations.

“Cor­po­ra­tions under ISDS can bring cas­es with­out their nation­al government’s per­mis­sion, while unions and envi­ron­men­tal groups in order to enforce the labor rights and envi­ron­men­tal rights in these agree­ment have to get their gov­ern­ment to bring the case,” said Damon Sil­vers, the AFL-CIO’s asso­ciate gen­er­al counsel.

Gov­ern­ment action has been rare. In 2014, the Gov­ern­ment Account­abil­i­ty Office crit­i­cized ​“lim­it­ed mon­i­tor­ing and enforce­ment” of trade deals’ pro­tec­tions for labor rights.

Oppo­nents of the TPP say the new deal would do lit­tle to increase enforce­ment, and much to give com­pa­nies spe­cial rights.

Sure, cor­po­ra­tions may still be con­sid­ered peo­ple under U.S. domes­tic law — but under Amer­i­can trade pol­i­cy, they get far more rights than almost every­one else.