Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-416_i4dj.pdf
Page Number: 25

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

5 

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

also Kiobel, 569 U. S., at 120; Sosa, 542 U. S., at 716–717, 
and  n. 11.  Congress’  “principal  objective”  in  establishing 
federal jurisdiction over such torts, therefore, “was to avoid 
foreign entanglements by ensuring the availability of a fed-
eral forum where the failure to provide one might cause an-
other  nation  to  hold  the  United  States  responsible  for  an 
injury  to  a  foreign  citizen.”  Jesner,  584  U. S.,  at  ___–___ 
(slip op., at 8–9). 

As  this  Court  explained  in  Sosa,  “[t]he  anxieties  of  the 
preconstitutional period cannot be ignored easily enough to 
think that the [ATS] was not meant to have a practical ef-
fect.’ ”  542 U. S., at 719.  It was Congress’ assessment that 
diplomatic strife is best avoided by providing a federal fo-
rum to redress those law-of-nations torts that, if not reme-
died, could bring international opprobrium upon the United 
States.  Because the First Congress did not pass “the ATS 
only to leave it lying fallow indefinitely,” the statute “is best 
read as having been enacted on the understanding that the 
common law would provide a cause of action” for widely rec-
ognized torts in violation of the law of nations.  Id., at 719, 
724; see also Jesner, 584 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8) (“[T]he 
[ATS]  was  not  enacted  to  sit  on  a  shelf  awaiting  further 

—————— 
The first occurred in 1784 when a French adventurer assaulted the Sec-
retary  of  the  French  Legation  in  Philadelphia,  prompting  the  French 
Minister to complain to Congress “that a violation of the laws of Nations 
. . . hath been committed.”  27 Journals of the Continental Congress 478 
(G. Hunt ed. 1928).  Three years later, a New York City constable created 
another diplomatic imbroglio by entering the home of the Dutch Ambas-
sador and arresting one of his servants.  The Ambassador wrote to the 
Secretary of Foreign Affairs, calling the incident “a most notorious and 
direct violation of the rights of nations” and demanding the Secretary’s 
“official [interposition] . . . to obtain the satisfaction due . . . by virtue of 
the laws of nations.”  Letter from P. Van Berckel to J. Jay (Dec. 18, 1787), 
in 3 Dept. of State, The Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States 
of America 443 (1837) (hereinafter Diplomatic Correspondence) (brack-
ets in original).