The Alien Tort Statute (ATS) grants U.S. district courts jurisdiction over cases in which an alien sues “for a tort only… in violation of the law of nations or of a treaty of the United States.” In 1980, the Second Circuit’s opinion in Filártiga v. Peña-Irala set new precedent for interpreting the ATS, allowing foreign citizens to use U.S. courts to litigate violations of international law that occurred outside the United States. The statute quickly became a tool of those seeking relief for human rights violations. While its scope was restricted by a 2013 Supreme Court decision limiting its application in cases with a minimal connection to the United States, the ATS’ scope and meaning remain a contentious topic with far-reaching implications.
Latest in Alien Tort Statute
The cases center on the question: When can a U.S. company be sued for alleged human rights violations abroad under the Alien Tort Statute?
A preliminary analysis of the legal questions likely to be raised in the lawsuits against the Saudi crown prince.
On Friday, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted government motions to dismiss and for summary judgment in Al Shimari v. CACI, a case brought by plaintiffs who were detained in Abu Ghraib. The full opinion is available here and below.
It has been half a year since the Supreme Court decided Jesner v. Arab Bank, which held that the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) did not permit federal courts to recognize causes of action against foreign corporations. When the Jesner ruling was announced, commentators disagreed about its impact.
Here is the Winter 2018 Supplement for Bradley & Goldsmith, Foreign Relations Law: Cases and Materials (6th ed. 2017). These materials cover, among many other things, the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Hawaii (the “travel ban” case), which is excerpted with questions; the Supreme Court’s decision in Jesner v.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC further restricts federal private litigation to vindicate international human rights law, perhaps to a vanishing point. In retrospect, even Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain’s guarded endorsement of such lawsuits seems exceptional. Both Kiobel v.
This Tuesday, the Supreme Court held in Jesner et al. v. Arab Bank, PLC that the federal courts are not available to aliens in actions against foreign corporations.
In a 5-4 vote, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the majority opinion, the court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s dismissal of the case and held that aliens cannot bring suit under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) against foreign corporations.
Procedural History
By now, most Lawfare readers will be aware of the issues before the Supreme Court in Jesner v. Arab Bank, which was decided yesterday. The plaintiffs/petitioners—foreign victims of overseas terrorist attacks—brought suit against the Arab Bank, a major Jordanian financial institution, for allegedly providing financial support and services to terrorists and terrorist organizations responsible for the attacks.
Now that liability for corporations (foreign ones, at least) under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) is off the table, the recriminations can begin.
Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision in Jesner v. Arab Bank was genuinely shocking. The case involved victims of terrorism and the plaintiffs sought a tort remedy against alleged financial supporters of that wrong. Few believed that the conservative justices, whatever their corporate-friendly jurisprudence across the board, would foreclose a remedy on these facts. Yet they did.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued the following opinion in Jesner v. Arab Bank, which held that foreign corporations cannot be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute.