505:, a Paraguayan doctor filed suit in the U.S. against Americo Peña-Irala, a former Paraguayan police supervisor living in New York. The doctor claimed that Peña-Irala supervised and participated in the torture of his son. The case reached the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, where the central question before the court was whether torture was considered a violation of the law of nations, as required under the Alien Tort Statute. In a landmark decision, the Second Circuit found that torture did qualify as a violation of the law of nations and therefore U.S. courts had jurisdiction to decide the case under the Alien Tort Statute. This holding opened up U.S. courts to victims of human rights abuses that occurred outside the U.S. through the previously obscure Alien Tort Statute. After
542:, the court held that the statute presumptively does not apply extraterritorially, but that petitioners can overcome this presumption if their claims "touch and concern" the U.S. with sufficient force. Therefore, foreign plaintiffs cannot bring claims against foreign defendants under the Alien Tort Statute for matters arising entirely outside of the U.S. The Supreme Court opinion did not, however, address the lower court's opinion as to whether corporations can be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute. Many legal scholars agree that the Supreme Court's decisions in both
31:
1047:"S. Kadic, on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of Her Infant Sonsbenjamin and Ognjen, Internationalna Iniciativazena Bosne I Hercegovine "biser," Andzene Bosne I Hercegovine, plaintiffs-appellants, v. Radovan Karadzic, Defendant-appellee.jane Doe I, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarlysituated; and Jane Doe Ii, on Behalf of Herself and Asadministratrix of the Estate of Her Deceased Mother, and Onbehalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Radovan Karadzic, Defendant-appellee, 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1996)"
530:, the Supreme Court held that courts may recognize "a narrow set of common law actions derived from the law of nations," which meet a "specific, universal, and obligatory" standard, but that the statute itself does not provide a cause of action. The court noted that while the door to "further independent judicial recognition of actionable international norms" is still "ajar," it must be subject to "vigilant doorkeeping" by the courts. Nine years later, the Supreme Court addressed questions on the
672:
Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan joined this dissent. Sotomayor wrote that “othing about the corporate form in itself justifies categorically foreclosing corporate liability,” and that consequently, “ach source of diplomatic friction that respondent Arab Bank and the plurality identify can be addressed with a tool more tailored to the source of the problem than a blanket ban on corporate liability.” Additionally, the dissent argued that
Kennedy's plurality misapplied the
641:
imposing a new substantive legal liability," because such claims against foreign corporations brought in U.S. courts may impact U.S. foreign relations. Kennedy cited the amicus brief Jordan filed with the court as evidence of increased diplomatic tensions, which the First
Congress sought to avoid through the creation of the Alien Tort Statute. Jordan, where Arab Bank is headquartered, characterized the
663:
provided two reasons in support of the court's central holding that foreign corporations cannot be defendants under the Alien Tort
Statute. First, Gorsuch argued that "separation-of-powers principles dictate that courts should never recognize new causes of action under the ATS," and second, that the statute requires a domestic defendant, whether a natural person or corporation.
571:
367:
1231:"Terrorism Victims' Attempt to Hold Foreign Bank Liable under Federal Alien Tort Statute for Facilitating Terrorism Through Financial Transactions in the U.S. Fails in United States Supreme Court Alien Tort Statute Does Not Apply to Foreign Corporations: Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, U.S., 138 S.Ct. 1386 (2018)"
693:
decision has led to a debate about how useful the Alien Tort
Statute can be as a tool for civil human rights litigation going forward. The central holding leaves open the possibility of suits against domestic corporations or individual employees of foreign corporations, but others emphasize that very
640:
The majority's reasoning was driven in large part by separation of powers concerns, noting that the political branches traditionally have responsibility over foreign affairs. Kennedy stated that
Congress, not the courts, "is in the better position to consider if the public interest would be served by
680:
test requires that under the Alien Tort
Statute, the violated international law norm must be "specific, universal, and obligatory." Sotomayor writes that this requirement is inapposite to the question of corporate liability, however, because it applies to the substantive prohibition in question, not
448:
and over 600 branches around the world. Petitioners claimed that the bank facilitated the terrorist acts that caused injury to themselves and their families by maintaining accounts for terrorists and allowing funds to transfer through the bank to terrorist groups. In order to connect their claims to
662:
Justice Alito's concurring opinion emphasized the Alien Tort
Statute's objective of "avoiding diplomatic strife" and urged the court to reject claims, such as those brought against foreign corporate defendants, that would not advance this congressional purpose. Justice Gorsuch's concurring opinion
649:
The rest of
Justice Kennedy's opinion only commanded the support of Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas, and therefore did not reach a majority. Kennedy, Roberts, and Thomas would have gone further than the majority, foreclosing ATS liability for all corporations. Kennedy's plurality opinion argued
456:
Petitioners filed five separate lawsuits against Arab Bank in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York under the Alien Tort Statute, which allows foreign nationals to bring civil claims in U.S. federal district court. The district court dismissed the case based on the
491:
did not grant the central government the authority to provide remedies to foreign citizens, which at that time caused substantial tensions in foreign-relations. In order to remedy this problem, the First
Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which included what is now known as the Alien Tort
671:
Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion, in which she argued that the "text, history, and purpose of the ATS, as well as the long and consistent history of corporate liability in tort, confirm that tort claims for law-of-nations violations may be brought against corporations under the ATS."
645:
case as a "grave affront" to its sovereignty that could "undermine its cooperation with the United States." Given these considerations, a five justice majority found "it would be inappropriate for courts to extend ATS liability to foreign corporations." They argued that Congress can explicitly
449:
the U.S.—the location of the lawsuit—petitioners specifically alleged that Arab Bank processed transactions through its New York branch that benefited terrorists, and that the New York branch was used to launder money for a Texas-based charity with purported ties to
348:
At issue in this case was whether the ATS allows foreign corporations to be sued in U.S. courts. The Supreme Court held, by a 5–4 vote, that foreign corporations cannot be sued under the Alien Tort Statute. The majority opinion was written by Justice
492:
Statute. As it stands, the text of the Alien Tort Statute reads: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States."
1332:
509:, plaintiffs increasingly used the Alien Tort Statute to seek damages for human-right violations committed abroad. In 1996, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals again heard a case related to the Alien Tort Statute:
463:
that corporations cannot be sued under the Alien Tort Statute. Petitioners then appealed this decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court's ruling. The Supreme Court granted
1542:
328:(ATS). Plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank facilitated terrorist attacks by transferring funds to terrorist groups in the Middle East, some of which passed through Arab Bank's offices in New York City.
513:. The court's decision expanded liability under the Alien Tort Statute beyond state actors to include private actors, which opened the pathway for suits against non-state entities like corporations.
1230:
337:
the Supreme Court avoided the question of corporate liability, and the lower court's holding that ATS did not apply to foreign corporate defendants continued to have force as precedent in the
681:
mechanisms for enforcement. Furthermore, Sotomayor noted that members of the Executive branch and Congress filed briefs with the court supporting the imposition of corporate liability.
1476:
1109:
846:
763:
79:
1380:
1552:
632:
On April 24, 2018, in a 5-4 decision the majority ruled that foreign corporations cannot be sued under the Alien Tort Statute, affirming the lower court.
1537:
1532:
970:"Dolly M. E. Filartiga and Joel Filartiga, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Americo Norberto Pena-irala, Defendant-appellee, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980)"
1385:
1547:
841:
780:
459:
440:
between 1995 and 2005. Following these events, they brought suit in U.S. courts against Arab Bank, a major financial institution in the
904:
303:
35:
1214:
1165:
614:
410:
581:
377:
676:
test by conflating international law's substantive prohibitions on conduct with the mechanisms used to enforce these norms. The
1429:
654:"specific, universal, and obligatory" test, since international law only applies to the conduct of states and natural persons.
333:
995:
947:
531:
497:
1075:
428:
Petitioners in this case (non-U.S. citizens) alleged that they or their relatives were victims of terrorist attacks in
321:
596:
392:
592:
388:
488:
694:
few cases will meet the heightened combination of requirements for Alien Tort Statute jurisdiction outlined in
495:
Though enacted in 1789, the Alien Tort Statute went largely unused for centuries, until 1980, with the case of
1318:
1104:
650:
that there is no norm of corporate liability "under currently prevailing international law," as required in
522:
969:
953:
1323:
1046:
341:. Accordingly, petitioner's ATS claims were dismissed by the District Court and the Supreme Court granted
646:
legislate to allow lawsuits against foreign corporations under such circumstances if it wishes to do so.
1480:
1113:
850:
767:
477:
74:
1513:
468:
in October 2016 to consider whether the Alien Tort Statute allows suits against foreign corporations.
200:
1505:
550:
placed significant limitations on the scope of the Alien Tort Statute—a trend that continued with
1434:
1410:
1360:
520:, the Supreme Court began to place limits on the statute's jurisdiction in 2004 with the case of
325:
299:
1442:
1286:
1402:
1352:
1210:
1161:
1394:
1344:
1116:
1487:
996:"With All Deliberate Speed: Civil Human Rights Litigation As a Tool for Social Change2305"
759:
350:
220:
196:
188:
853:
338:
208:
1333:"Corporate Liability Under the US Alien Tort Statute: A Comment on Jesner v Arab Bank"
63:
1526:
1414:
1364:
781:"An introduction to the Alien Tort Statute and corporate liability: In Plain English"
445:
120:
871:
232:
212:
180:
152:
135:
908:
307:
480:, the ATS allows foreign nationals to bring lawsuits in U.S. district courts for
165:
Foreign corporations may not be sued under the Alien Tort Statute in U.S. courts.
441:
224:
117:
1458:
1517:
437:
342:
249:
Kennedy (Parts I, II–B–1, and II–C), joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch
1406:
1356:
433:
86:
1449:
1258:
1185:
1132:
1025:
925:
1496:
1398:
811:
124:
98:
1348:
257:
Kennedy (Parts II–A, II–B–2, II–B–3, and III), joined by Roberts, Thomas
875:
484:"in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States."
144:
139:
1319:
Correcting an Evident Error: A Plea to Revise Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC
516:
After a decades-long explosion of Alien Tort Statute litigation post-
429:
599:. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.
395:. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.
1158:
International Business Transactions: Problems, Cases, and Materials
1430:
Supreme Court Bars Human Rights Suits Against Foreign Corporations
450:
1076:"The Sosa Standard: What Does It Mean for Future ATS Litigation?"
481:
149:
132:
30:
564:
360:
324:
which addressed the issue of corporate liability under the
588:
384:
320:, No. 16-499, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case from the
1543:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
1207:
International Civil Litigation in United States Courts
155:(2d Cir. 2016); cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 1432 (2017).
54:
Joseph Jesner, et al., Petitioners v. Arab Bank, PLC.
293:
285:
277:
269:
261:
253:
245:
240:
169:
159:
109:
104:
94:
69:
59:
49:
42:
23:
964:
962:
1454:, Congressional Research Service (June 1, 2018).
867:In re Arab Bank, PLC Alien Tort Statute Litig.
129:In re Arab Bank, PLC Alien Tort Statute Litig.
8:
289:Sotomayor, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan
20:
892:, 137 S. Ct. 1432 (2017).
751:
749:
747:
745:
743:
741:
739:
615:Learn how and when to remove this message
411:Learn how and when to remove this message
1259:"The Alien Tort Statute (ATS): A Primer"
1186:"The Alien Tort Statute (ATS): A Primer"
1026:"The Alien Tort Statute (ATS): A Primer"
926:"The Alien Tort Statute (ATS): A Primer"
836:
834:
832:
737:
735:
733:
731:
729:
727:
725:
723:
721:
719:
715:
472:Legal history of the Alien Tort Statute
1451:The Alien Tort Statute (ATS): A Primer
1443:Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC: Leading Case
1281:
1279:
1277:
1275:
1252:
1250:
1248:
1246:
1244:
1209:. Aspen Publishing. 2022. p. 71.
1386:American Journal of International Law
1257:Mulligan, Stephen P. (June 1, 2018).
1184:Mulligan, Stephen P. (June 1, 2018).
1179:
1177:
1127:
1125:
1099:
1097:
1095:
1093:
1069:
1067:
1024:Mulligan, Stephen P. (June 1, 2018).
1019:
1017:
1015:
1013:
924:Mulligan, Stephen P. (June 1, 2018).
900:
898:
18:2018 United States Supreme Court case
7:
919:
917:
806:
804:
802:
842:Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
460:Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
1538:United States Supreme Court cases
1483:___ (2018) is available from:
1337:Business and Human Rights Journal
1133:"Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum"
534:of the Alien Tort Statute in the
569:
365:
29:
1445:". 132 Harv. L. Rev. 397 (2018)
1438:. p. B2. Retrieved 8 July 2019.
1428:Liptak, Adam (24 April 2018). "
1074:Monken Gomez, Virginia (2006).
334:Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum
1553:Jordan–United States relations
1533:2018 in United States case law
1266:Congressional Research Service
1193:Congressional Research Service
1033:Congressional Research Service
933:Congressional Research Service
1:
1379:Hamilton, Rebecca J. (2018).
457:Second Circuit's decision in
1506:Supreme Court (slip opinion)
1548:Alien Tort Statute case law
1461:" LAWFARE (April 25, 2018).
595:the claims made and adding
391:the claims made and adding
322:United States Supreme Court
127:2015); affirmed sub. nom.,
1569:
1497:Oyez (oral argument audio)
1331:Dodge, William S. (2019).
1287:"Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC"
1160:. Aspen Publishing. 2020.
994:Van Schaack, Beth (2005).
812:"Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC"
489:Articles of Confederation
444:with its headquarters in
298:
174:
164:
28:
1473:Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC
1317:
1235:California Tort Reporter
956: (2d Cir. 1980).
889:Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC
756:Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC
317:Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC
24:Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC
1105:Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain
948:Filártiga v. Peña-Irala
523:Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain
498:Filártiga v. Peña-Irala
476:Enacted as part of the
114:Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC
43:Argued October 11, 2017
1448:Mulligan, Stephen P.,
561:Supreme Court Decision
45:Decided April 24, 2018
1381:"Jesner v. Arab Bank"
1080:Pepperdine Law Review
1000:Vanderbilt Law Review
478:Judiciary Act of 1789
85:138 S. Ct. 1386; 200
1399:10.1017/ajil.2018.73
1291:harvardlawreview.org
954:630 F.2d 876
872:808 F.3d 144
1457:Keitner, Chimène, "
1349:10.1017/bhj.2018.19
1316:William J. Aceves,
532:extraterritoriality
201:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
1435:The New York Times
1293:. November 9, 2018
580:possibly contains
424:Factual background
376:possibly contains
326:Alien Tort Statute
300:Alien Tort Statute
185:Associate Justices
625:
624:
617:
582:original research
511:Kadic v. Karadzic
421:
420:
413:
378:original research
313:
312:
281:Gorsuch (in part)
142:2015); rehearing
1560:
1510:
1504:
1501:
1495:
1492:
1486:
1425:
1423:
1421:
1375:
1373:
1371:
1327:
1324:Geo. L.J. Online
1321:
1303:
1302:
1300:
1298:
1283:
1270:
1269:
1263:
1254:
1239:
1238:
1227:
1221:
1220:
1203:
1197:
1196:
1190:
1181:
1172:
1171:
1154:
1148:
1147:
1145:
1143:
1129:
1120:
1101:
1088:
1087:
1071:
1062:
1061:
1059:
1057:
1043:
1037:
1036:
1030:
1021:
1008:
1007:
991:
985:
984:
982:
980:
966:
957:
951:
943:
937:
936:
930:
921:
912:
902:
893:
891:
885:
879:
869:
863:
857:
838:
827:
826:
824:
822:
808:
797:
796:
794:
792:
777:
771:
753:
620:
613:
609:
606:
600:
597:inline citations
573:
572:
565:
416:
409:
405:
402:
396:
393:inline citations
369:
368:
361:
170:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
1568:
1567:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1523:
1522:
1508:
1502:
1499:
1493:
1490:
1484:
1468:
1419:
1417:
1378:
1369:
1367:
1330:
1315:
1312:
1310:Further reading
1307:
1306:
1296:
1294:
1285:
1284:
1273:
1261:
1256:
1255:
1242:
1229:
1228:
1224:
1217:
1205:
1204:
1200:
1188:
1183:
1182:
1175:
1168:
1156:
1155:
1151:
1141:
1139:
1131:
1130:
1123:
1102:
1091:
1073:
1072:
1065:
1055:
1053:
1045:
1044:
1040:
1028:
1023:
1022:
1011:
993:
992:
988:
978:
976:
968:
967:
960:
945:
944:
940:
928:
923:
922:
915:
903:
896:
887:
886:
882:
865:
864:
860:
839:
830:
820:
818:
810:
809:
800:
790:
788:
787:. July 24, 2017
779:
778:
774:
770:___ (2018).
754:
717:
712:
687:
669:
660:
638:
630:
628:Central holding
621:
610:
604:
601:
586:
574:
570:
563:
474:
426:
417:
406:
400:
397:
382:
370:
366:
359:
351:Anthony Kennedy
273:Alito (in part)
223:
221:Sonia Sotomayor
211:
199:
197:Clarence Thomas
189:Anthony Kennedy
90:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1566:
1564:
1556:
1555:
1550:
1545:
1540:
1535:
1525:
1524:
1521:
1520:
1511:
1467:
1466:External links
1464:
1463:
1462:
1455:
1446:
1439:
1426:
1393:(4): 720–727.
1376:
1343:(1): 131–137.
1328:
1326:63 (2018).
1311:
1308:
1305:
1304:
1271:
1240:
1222:
1215:
1198:
1173:
1166:
1149:
1121:
1089:
1063:
1038:
1009:
986:
958:
938:
913:
905:28 U.S.C.
894:
880:
858:
828:
798:
772:
714:
713:
711:
708:
686:
683:
668:
665:
659:
656:
637:
634:
629:
626:
623:
622:
577:
575:
568:
562:
556:
473:
470:
425:
422:
419:
418:
373:
371:
364:
358:
355:
339:Second Circuit
331:When deciding
311:
310:
304:28 U.S.C.
296:
295:
291:
290:
287:
283:
282:
279:
275:
274:
271:
267:
266:
263:
259:
258:
255:
251:
250:
247:
243:
242:
238:
237:
236:
235:
209:Stephen Breyer
186:
183:
178:
172:
171:
167:
166:
162:
161:
157:
156:
111:
107:
106:
102:
101:
96:
92:
91:
84:
71:
67:
66:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1565:
1554:
1551:
1549:
1546:
1544:
1541:
1539:
1536:
1534:
1531:
1530:
1528:
1519:
1515:
1512:
1507:
1498:
1489:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1469:
1465:
1460:
1456:
1453:
1452:
1447:
1444:
1440:
1437:
1436:
1431:
1427:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1387:
1382:
1377:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1329:
1325:
1320:
1314:
1313:
1309:
1292:
1288:
1282:
1280:
1278:
1276:
1272:
1267:
1260:
1253:
1251:
1249:
1247:
1245:
1241:
1236:
1232:
1226:
1223:
1218:
1216:9781543847437
1212:
1208:
1202:
1199:
1194:
1187:
1180:
1178:
1174:
1169:
1167:9781543822380
1163:
1159:
1153:
1150:
1138:
1134:
1128:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1106:
1100:
1098:
1096:
1094:
1090:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1070:
1068:
1064:
1052:
1048:
1042:
1039:
1034:
1027:
1020:
1018:
1016:
1014:
1010:
1005:
1001:
997:
990:
987:
975:
971:
965:
963:
959:
955:
950:
949:
942:
939:
934:
927:
920:
918:
914:
910:
906:
901:
899:
895:
890:
884:
881:
877:
873:
868:
862:
859:
855:
852:
848:
844:
843:
837:
835:
833:
829:
817:
813:
807:
805:
803:
799:
786:
782:
776:
773:
769:
765:
761:
757:
752:
750:
748:
746:
744:
742:
740:
738:
736:
734:
732:
730:
728:
726:
724:
722:
720:
716:
709:
707:
705:
701:
697:
692:
684:
682:
679:
675:
666:
664:
657:
655:
653:
647:
644:
635:
633:
627:
619:
616:
608:
598:
594:
590:
584:
583:
578:This section
576:
567:
566:
560:
557:
555:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
525:
524:
519:
514:
512:
508:
504:
500:
499:
493:
490:
485:
483:
479:
471:
469:
467:
462:
461:
454:
452:
447:
446:Amman, Jordan
443:
439:
435:
431:
423:
415:
412:
404:
394:
390:
386:
380:
379:
374:This section
372:
363:
362:
356:
354:
352:
346:
344:
340:
336:
335:
329:
327:
323:
319:
318:
309:
305:
301:
297:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
241:Case opinions
239:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
187:
184:
182:
179:
177:Chief Justice
176:
175:
173:
168:
163:
158:
154:
151:
147:
146:
141:
137:
134:
130:
126:
122:
119:
115:
112:
108:
103:
100:
99:Oral argument
97:
93:
88:
82:
81:
76:
72:
68:
65:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
1472:
1450:
1433:
1418:. Retrieved
1390:
1384:
1368:. Retrieved
1340:
1336:
1295:. Retrieved
1290:
1265:
1237:. June 2018.
1234:
1225:
1206:
1201:
1192:
1157:
1152:
1140:. Retrieved
1136:
1119: (2004).
1103:
1083:
1079:
1054:. Retrieved
1050:
1041:
1032:
1003:
999:
989:
977:. Retrieved
973:
946:
941:
932:
888:
883:
866:
861:
856: (2013).
840:
819:. Retrieved
815:
789:. Retrieved
784:
775:
755:
703:
699:
695:
690:
689:The Court's
688:
685:Significance
677:
673:
670:
661:
658:Concurrences
651:
648:
642:
639:
631:
611:
602:
579:
558:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
527:
521:
517:
515:
510:
506:
502:
496:
494:
486:
475:
465:
458:
455:
427:
407:
398:
375:
347:
332:
330:
316:
315:
314:
294:Laws applied
233:Neil Gorsuch
228:
216:
213:Samuel Alito
204:
192:
181:John Roberts
148:denied, 822
143:
128:
113:
105:Case history
78:
53:
15:
1086:: 469, 481.
909:§ 1350
878: 2015).
442:Middle East
308:§ 1350
278:Concurrence
270:Concurrence
262:Concurrence
225:Elena Kagan
118:F. Supp. 3d
1527:Categories
1518:SCOTUSblog
1051:Justia Law
1035:: Summary.
974:Justia Law
785:SCOTUSblog
758:, No.
710:References
589:improve it
466:certiorari
385:improve it
357:Background
343:certiorari
60:Docket no.
1514:Case page
1459:ATS, RIP?
1415:150011522
1407:0002-9300
1365:202315945
1357:2057-0198
821:April 26,
636:Reasoning
605:July 2019
593:verifying
538:case. In
518:Filártiga
507:Filártiga
503:Filártiga
434:West Bank
401:July 2019
389:verifying
254:Plurality
87:L. Ed. 2d
70:Citations
1471:Text of
1268:: 20–21.
1117:692, 721
246:Majority
125:E.D.N.Y.
95:Argument
1420:July 8,
1370:July 8,
1297:May 30,
1142:May 30,
1056:May 30,
1006:: 2305.
979:May 30,
876:2d Cir.
791:May 30,
667:Dissent
587:Please
383:Please
286:Dissent
160:Holding
145:en banc
140:2d Cir.
1509:
1503:
1500:
1494:
1491:
1488:Justia
1485:
1413:
1405:
1363:
1355:
1322:, 107
1213:
1164:
1108:,
952:,
935:: 3–4.
907:
874: (
870:,
845:,
762:,
760:16-499
704:Jesner
702:, and
700:Kiobel
691:Jesner
652:Sosa's
643:Jesner
559:Jesner
552:Jesner
548:Kiobel
540:Kiobel
536:Kiobel
436:, and
430:Israel
306:
265:Thomas
231:
229:·
227:
219:
217:·
215:
207:
205:·
203:
195:
193:·
191:
131:, 808
64:16-499
1479:
1411:S2CID
1361:S2CID
1262:(PDF)
1195:: 19.
1189:(PDF)
1112:
1029:(PDF)
929:(PDF)
849:
766:
526:. In
501:. In
482:torts
451:Hamas
116:, 97
110:Prior
77:___ (
1481:U.S.
1422:2019
1403:ISSN
1372:2019
1353:ISSN
1299:2020
1211:ISBN
1162:ISBN
1144:2020
1137:Oyez
1114:U.S.
1058:2020
981:2020
851:U.S.
823:2020
816:Oyez
793:2020
768:U.S.
696:Sosa
678:Sosa
674:Sosa
546:and
544:Sosa
528:Sosa
487:The
438:Gaza
150:F.3d
133:F.3d
80:more
75:U.S.
73:584
1516:at
1477:584
1432:".
1395:doi
1391:112
1345:doi
1110:542
854:108
847:569
764:584
591:by
387:by
136:144
121:287
89:612
1529::
1475:,
1409:.
1401:.
1389:.
1383:.
1359:.
1351:.
1339:.
1335:.
1289:.
1274:^
1264:.
1243:^
1233:.
1191:.
1176:^
1135:.
1124:^
1092:^
1084:33
1082:.
1078:.
1066:^
1049:.
1031:.
1012:^
1004:57
1002:.
998:.
972:.
961:^
931:.
916:^
897:^
831:^
814:.
801:^
783:.
718:^
706:.
698:,
554:.
453:.
432:,
353:.
345:.
302:,
153:34
1441:"
1424:.
1397::
1374:.
1347::
1341:4
1301:.
1219:.
1170:.
1146:.
1060:.
983:.
911:.
825:.
795:.
618:)
612:(
607:)
603:(
585:.
414:)
408:(
403:)
399:(
381:.
138:(
123:(
83:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.