Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 76

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

19 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

II 
At  its  second  step,  Sosa  cautions  that  courts  should 

consider  whether  permitting  a  case  to  proceed  is  an  ap­
propriate exercise of judicial discretion in light of potential 
foreign-policy  implications.    See  542  U. S.,  at  727–728, 
732–733,  738.    The  plurality  only  assumes  without  decid­
ing  that  international  law  does  not  impose  liability  on 
corporations,  so  it  necessarily  proceeds  to  Sosa’s  second 
step.  Here, too, its analysis is flawed. 

A 
Nothing  about  the  corporate  form  in  itself  justifies
categorically  foreclosing  corporate  liability  in  all  ATS 
actions.  Each  source  of  diplomatic  friction  that  respond­
ent Arab Bank and the plurality identify can be addressed
with a tool more tailored to the source of the problem than
a blanket ban on corporate liability. 

Arab  Bank  contends  that  foreign  citizens  should  not  be 
able  “to  sue  a  Jordanian  corporation  in  New  York  for
events  taking  place  in  the  Middle  East.”    Brief  for  Re­
spondent  42.  The  heart  of  that  qualm  was  already  ad­
dressed  in  Kiobel,  which  held  that  the  presumption
against  extraterritoriality  applies  to  the  ATS.    569  U. S., 
at  124.  Only  where  the  claims  “touch  and  concern  the 
territory of the United States . . . with sufficient force” can
the  presumption  be  displaced.  Id.,  at  124–125.  “[M]ere
corporate  presence”  does  not  suffice.    Id.,  at  125.    Thus, 
contrary to the majority’s contention, “the relatively minor 
connection  between  the  terrorist  attacks  at  issue  in  this 
case  and  the  alleged  conduct  in  the  United  States”  does 
not  “well  illustrat[e]  the  perils  of  extending  the  scope  of 
ATS  liability  to  foreign  multinational  corporations,”  ante, 
at  25,  but  merely  illustrates  the  risks  of  extending  the
scope  of  ATS  liability  extraterritorially  absent  sufficient 
connection to the United States. 

Arab  Bank  also  bemoans  the  unfairness  of  being  sued