Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-416_i4dj.pdf
Page Number: 24

4 

NESTLE USA, INC. v. DOE 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring
Opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J. 

can demonstrate that the alleged violation is ‘of a norm that 
is specific, universal, and obligatory.’ ”  Jesner, 584 U. S., at 
___–___  (plurality  opinion)  (slip  op.,  at  11–12)  (quoting 
Sosa, 542 U. S., at 732).  If so, then “it must be determined 
further whether allowing [a] case to proceed under the ATS 
is a proper exercise of judicial discretion.”  Jesner, 584 U. S., 
at ___ (slip op., at 12). 

B 

JUSTICE THOMAS reads Sosa and this Court’s subsequent 
precedents to impose an “extraordinarily strict” standard at 
Sosa’s second step.  Ante, at 8.  If a court “can identify even 
one  ‘sound  reaso[n]’ ”  to  think  Congress  might  doubt  the 
need for a cause of action under the ATS, we are told, the 
court should  refuse  to  recognize  it.  Ibid. (quoting  Jesner, 
584  U. S.,  at  ___  (majority  opinion)  (slip  op., at  18);  some 
internal quotation marks omitted). 

The  trouble with  JUSTICE THOMAS’  test is  that  it  is  un-
moored from both history and precedent.  The ATS  was a 
statute born of necessity.  In the early days of the Republic, 
the “Continental Congress was hamstrung by its inability” 
under the Articles of Confederation “to ‘cause infractions of 
treaties, or of the law of nations to be punished.’ ”  Sosa, 542 
U. S., at 716 (quoting J. Madison, Journal of the Constitu-
tional  Convention  60  (E.  Scott  ed.  1893)).  The  United 
States’ failure to redress such offenses “caused substantial 
foreign-relations  problems,”  Jesner,  584  U. S., at  ___  (slip 
op., at 7), and “threaten[ed] serious consequences in inter-
national affairs,” Sosa, 542 U. S., at 715.  On more than one 
occasion  (and  in  no  uncertain  terms),  foreign  powers  ex-
pressed their displeasure with the United States’ failure to 
provide  redress  for  law-of-nations  violations  against  their 
citizens.2  See Jesner, 584 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7); see 

—————— 

2 Two “notorious episodes,” in particular, underscored Congress’ impo-
tence.  Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U. S. 108, 120 (2013).