Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 26

20 

JESNER v. ARAB BANK, PLC 

Opinion of the Court 
Opinion of KENNEDY, J. 

421  U. S.  723,  736  (1975).    Doing  so  is  even  more  im-
portant  in  the  realm  of  international  law,  where  “the 
general  practice  has  been  to  look  for  legislative  guidance 
before  exercising  innovative  authority  over  substantive
law.”  Sosa, supra, at 726. 

Here, the logical place to look for a statutory analogy to
an  ATS  common-law  action  is  the  TVPA—the  only  cause 
of  action  under  the  ATS  created  by  Congress  rather  than
the  courts.    As  explained  above,  Congress  drafted  the
TVPA to “establish an unambiguous and modern basis for 
a cause of action” under the ATS.  H. R. Rep., at 3; S. Rep., 
at  4–5.  Congress  took  care  to  delineate  the  TVPA’s
boundaries.  In doing so, it could weigh the foreign-policy 
implications  of  its  rule.    Among  other  things,  Congress
specified  who  may  be  liable,  created  an  exhaustion  re-
quirement,  and  established  a  limitations  period.  Kiobel, 
569  U. S.,  at  117.    In  Kiobel,  the  Court  recognized  that
“[e]ach of these decisions carries with it significant foreign 
policy  implications.”  Ibid.   The  TVPA  reflects  Congress’
considered judgment of the proper structure for a right of
action  under  the  ATS.    Absent  a  compelling  justification, 
courts should not deviate from that model. 

The  key  feature  of  the  TVPA  for  this  case  is  that  it
limits liability to “individuals,” which, the Court has held, 
unambiguously  limits  liability  to  natural  persons.    Mo-
hamad  v.  Palestinian  Authority,  566  U. S.  449,  453–456 
(2012).  Congress’ decision to exclude liability for corpora-
tions in actions brought under the TVPA is all but disposi-
tive  of  the  present  case.    That  decision  illustrates  that 
significant foreign-policy implications require the courts to 
draw  a  careful  balance  in  defining  the  scope  of  actions
under the ATS.  It would be inconsistent with that balance 
to  create  a  remedy  broader  than  the  one  created  by  Con-
gress.  Indeed,  it  “would  be  remarkable  to  take  a  more 
aggressive  role  in  exercising  a  jurisdiction  that  remained
largely  in  shadow  for  much  of  the  prior  two  centuries.”