Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-416_i4dj.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

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

7 

Opinion of the Court
Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

for  certain  torts  in  violation  of  the  law  of  nations.”  542 
U. S., at 724.  Although our decision in Erie R. Co. v. Tomp-
kins, 304 U. S. 64 (1938), “denied the existence of any fed-
eral ‘general’ common law,” we suggested that a limited, re-
sidual  amount  remained  to  create  causes  of  action  for 
violations of international law.  Sosa, 542 U. S., at 726, 729. 
We noted, for example, that courts in certain circumstances 
likely could recognize causes of action for violations of three 
historical torts: “violation of safe conducts, infringement of 
the rights of ambassadors, and piracy.”  Id., at 724. 

At  the  same  time,  we  stressed  that  this  authority  was 
narrow.  We noted that there was “no basis to suspect Con-
gress had any examples in mind beyond those [three] torts.” 
Ibid.  And we suggested that future “development” of law 
might  “preclud[e]  federal  courts  from  recognizing”  new 
causes of action.  Id., at 724–725. 

To guide our reasoning in the future, we described a two-
step test that plaintiffs must satisfy before a court can cre-
ate  a  cause  of  action  under  the  ATS.    First,  the  plaintiff 
must establish that the defendant violated “ ‘a norm that is 
specific,  universal,  and  obligatory’ ”  under  international 
law.  Id., at 732.  That norm must be “defined with a speci-
ficity comparable to” the three international torts known in 
1789.  Id.,  at  725.  Second,  the  plaintiff  must  show  that 
courts should exercise “judicial discretion” to create a cause 
of  action  rather  than  defer  to  Congress.  Id.,  at  726,  736, 
and n. 27; Jesner, 584 U. S., at ___–___ (plurality opinion) 
(slip op., at 11–12). 

Judicial authority under that test was narrow at the out-
set.    Our  more  recent  precedents  have  made  it  narrower 
still by stressing that judicial creation of a cause of action 
is an extraordinary act that places great stress on the sep-
aration of powers.  Although this Court in the mid-20th cen-
tury  often  assumed  authority  to  create  causes  of  action, 
Ziglar  v.  Abbasi,  582 U. S.  ___,  ___ (2017)  (slip  op.,  at  8),