Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 32.0

26 

JESNER v. ARAB BANK, PLC 

Opinion of the Court 

tional  corporations  like  Arab  Bank.    For  13  years,  this
litigation has “caused significant diplomatic tensions” with
Jordan, a critical ally in one of the world’s most sensitive
regions.  Brief  for  United  States  as  Amicus  Curiae  30.  
“Jordan  is  a  key  counterterrorism  partner,  especially  in 
the  global  campaign  to  defeat  the  Islamic  State  in  Iraq
and  Syria.”  Id.,  at  31.    The  United  States  explains  that
Arab  Bank  itself  is  “a  constructive  partner  with  the 
United States in working to prevent terrorist financing.”  Id., 
at  32  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    Jordan  consid-
ers  the  instant  litigation  to  be  a  “grave  affront”  to  its 
sovereignty.  See  Brief  for  Hashemite  Kingdom  of  Jordan 
as Amicus Curiae 3; see ibid. (“By exposing Arab Bank to
massive  liability,  this  suit  thus  threatens  to  destabilize 
Jordan’s economy and undermine its cooperation with the 
United States”).

This  is  not  the  first  time,  furthermore,  that  a  foreign
sovereign has appeared in this Court to note its objections
to  ATS  litigation.    Sosa,  542  U. S.,  at  733,  n.  21  (noting 
objections by the European Commission and South Africa);
Brief  for  the  Federal  Republic  of  Germany  as  Amicus 
Curiae in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., O. T. 2012, 
No. 10–1491, p. 1; Brief for the Government of the United 
Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Northern  Ireland  and  the 
Kingdom  of  the  Netherlands  as  Amici  Curiae  in  No.  10– 
1491,  p.  3.    These  are  the  very  foreign-relations  tensions
the First Congress sought to avoid.

Petitioners insist that whatever the faults of this litiga-
tion—for  example,  its  tenuous  connections  to  the  United
States  and  the  prolonged  diplomatic  disruptions  it  has 
caused—the  fact  that  Arab  Bank  is  a  foreign  corporate 
entity,  as  distinct  from  a  natural  person,  is  not  one  of 
them.  That  misses  the  point.  As  demonstrated  by  this 
litigation,  foreign  corporate  defendants  create  unique 
problems.  And  courts  are  not  well  suited  to  make  the 
required policy judgments that are implicated by corporate