Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-416_i4dj.pdf
Page Number: 6

4 

NESTLE USA, INC. v. DOE 

Opinion of the Court 

conduct  relevant  to  the  statute’s  focus  occurred  in  the 
United  States.”  RJR Nabisco,  579 U. S.,  at 337.  “[T]hen 
the case involves a permissible domestic application even if 
other conduct occurred abroad.”  Ibid. 

The parties dispute what conduct is relevant to the “fo-
cus”  of  the  ATS.    Respondents  seek  a  judicially  created 
cause  of  action  to  sue  petitioners  for  aiding  and  abetting 
forced labor overseas.  Arguing that aiding and abetting is 
not even a tort, but merely secondary liability for a tort, pe-
titioners and the United States contend that “the conduct 
relevant  to  the  [ATS’s]  focus”  is  the  conduct  that  directly 
caused the injury.  See id., at 346 (a plaintiff who “does not 
overcome  the  presumption  against  extraterritoriality  . . . 
therefore must allege and prove a domestic injury”).  All of 
that  alleged  conduct  occurred  overseas  in  this  suit.    The 
United States also argues that the “focus” inquiry is beside 
the point; courts should not create an aiding-and-abetting 
cause of action under the ATS at all.  See Central Bank of 
Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A., 511 
U. S. 164, 182–183 (1994) (“[W]hen Congress enacts a stat-
ute  under  which  a  person  may  sue  and  recover  damages 
from a private defendant . . . , there is no general presump-
tion that the plaintiff may also sue aiders and abettors” be-
cause that would create a “vast expansion of federal law”). 
For their part, respondents argue that aiding and abetting 
is a freestanding tort and that courts may create a private 
right of action to enforce it under the ATS.  They also con-
tend that the “focus” of the ATS is conduct that violates in-
ternational law, that aiding and abetting forced labor is a 
violation  of  international  law,  and  that  domestic  conduct 
can aid and abet an injury that occurs overseas. 

Even if we resolved all these disputes in respondents’ fa-
vor, their complaint would impermissibly seek extraterrito-
rial application of the ATS.  Nearly all the conduct that they 
say aided and abetted forced labor—providing training, fer-
tilizer, tools, and cash to overseas farms—occurred in Ivory