Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 72

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

15 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

son to limit the set of possible defendants in such actions 
to  potentially  judgment-proof  individuals”).  Indeed,  fore­
closing  corporations  from  liability  under  the  ATS  would 
have  been  at  odds  with  the  contemporaneous  practice  of 
imposing  liability  for  piracy  on  ships,  juridical  entities. 
See, e.g., Skinner v. East India Co., 6 State Trials 710, 711 
(1666);  The  Marianna  Flora,  11  Wheat.  1,  40–41  (1826); 
Harmony v. United States, 2 How. 210, 233 (1844). 

Finally,  the  conclusion  that  corporations  may  be  held
liable under the ATS for violations of the law of nations is 
not of recent vintage.  More than a century ago, the Attor­
ney General acknowledged that corporations could be held 
liable  under  the  ATS.    See  26  Op.  Atty.  Gen.  250,  252
(1907) (stating that citizens of Mexico could bring a claim 
under  the  ATS  against  a  corporation,  the  American  Rio 
Grande Land and Irrigation Company, for violating provi­
sions of a treaty between the United States and Mexico). 

D 
In  his  concurrence,  JUSTICE  GORSUCH  urges  courts  to
exercise restraint in recognizing causes of action under the 
ATS.  But whether the ATS provides a cause of action for 
violations  of  the  norms  against  genocide,  crimes  against 
humanity,  and  financing  of  terrorism  is  not  the  question
the parties have asked the Court to decide.  I therefore see 
no reason why it is necessary to delve into the propriety of
creating  new  causes  of  action.  Nevertheless,  because  I 
disagree  with  the  premises  on  which  the  concurrence 
relies, I offer two brief observations. 
  First,  JUSTICE  GORSUCH  says  it  “pass[es]  understand­
ing”  why  federal  courts  have  exercised  jurisdiction  over
ATS  claims  raised  by  foreign  plaintiffs  against  foreign
defendants for breaches of international norms.  See ante, 
at  1  (opinion  concurring  in  part  and  concurring  in  judg­
ment).  Modern ATS cases, however, are not being litigated
against  a  blank  slate.  The  Court  held  in  Sosa  that  Con­