Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): from “unintended clashes between our laws and those of other nations.” Kiobel, 133 S.Ct. at 1664 (citation omitted). In the present case, however, the plaintiffs seek to enforce the customary law of nations through a jurisdictional vehicle provided under United States law, the ATS, rather than a federal statute that itself details conduct to be regulated or enforced. Thus, any substantive norm enforced through an ATS claim necessarily is recognized by other nations as being actionable. Moreover, this case does not present any potential problems associated with bringing foreign nationals into United States courts to answer for conduct committed abroad, given that the defendants are United States citizens. Cf. Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Lively, 960 F.Supp.2d 304, 322-24 (D.Mass.2013) (<HOLDING>). We likewise note that further litigation of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that certain claims could not be a class issue in part because the complaint did not mention the claims (B) holding state buy american statute unconstitutional because it interfered with federal foreign affairs power emphasizing its effect on foreign commerce (C) holding nlra applied to state bank of indias activities in the united states because most employees are american citizens or american residents and the labor dispute centers on the wages to be paid american residents foreign or natural  (D) holding that coverage arguably existed under an insurance policy for claims against an employer and employees for an alleged assault and battery of bar patrons and that the insurer had a duty to defend (E) holding that kiobel did not bar ats claims against an american citizen in part because this is not a case where a foreign national is being hailed into an unfamiliar court to defend himself
Output (English): holding state buy american statute unconstitutional because it interfered with federal foreign affairs power emphasizing its effect on foreign commerce