Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 41.0

Cite as:  584 U. S. ____ (2018) 

5 

Opinion of ALITO, J. 

declining  to  create  it  under  the  ATS  cannot  give  other 
nations just cause for complaint against the United States. 
To  the  contrary,  ATS  suits  against  foreign  corporations
may  provoke—and,  indeed,  frequently  have  provoked—
exactly the sort of diplomatic strife inimical to the funda-
mental purpose of the ATS.  Some foreign states appear to
interpret  international  law  as  foreclosing  civil  corporate 
liability for violations of the law of nations.  See Brief for 
Government of the United Kingdom et al. as Amici Curiae 
in  Kiobel  v.  Royal  Dutch  Petroleum  Co.,  O. T.  2012,  No. 
10–1491,  p.  14.  Creating  ATS  causes  of  action  against 
foreign corporate defendants would put the United States
at  odds  with  these  nations.    Even  when  states  do  not 
object  to  this  sort  of  corporate  liability  as  a  legal  matter, 
they  may  be  concerned  about  ATS  suits  against  their 
corporations  for  political  reasons.  For  example,  Jordan 
considers this suit “a direct affront” to its sovereignty and
one that “risks destabilizing Jordan’s economy and under-
cutting one of the most stable and productive alliances the
United  States  has  in  the  Middle  East.”    Brief  for  Hashe-
mite  Kingdom  of  Jordan  as  Amicus  Curiae  4.  Courting
these  sorts  of  problems—which  seem  endemic  to  ATS 
litigation—was  the  opposite  of  what  the  First  Congress
had in mind. 

In  response,  the  dissent  argues  merely  that  any  diplo-
matic friction “can be addressed with a tool more tailored 
to the source of the problem than a blanket ban on corpo-
rate  liability.”    Post,  at  19.    Even  on  its  own  terms,  that 
argument is problematic: Many of the “more tailored” tools 
offered  by  the  dissent  will  still  be  hotly  litigated  by  ATS 
plaintiffs,  and  it  may  be  years  before  incorrect  initial 
decisions about their applicability can be reviewed by the 
courts of appeals.  See ante, at 11 (plurality opinion).

In  any  event,  the  dissent  misunderstands  the  relevant 
standard.  The  question  before  us  is  whether  the  United
States  would  be  embroiled  in  fewer  international  contro-