Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 45.0

2 

JESNER v. ARAB BANK, PLC 

Opinion of GORSUCH, J. 

I 

First  adopted  in  1789,  the  current  version  of  the  ATS 
provides  that  “[t]he  district  courts  shall  have  original 
jurisdiction  of  any  civil  action  by  an  alien  for  a  tort  only,
committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of
the  United  States.”  28  U. S. C.  §1350.    More  than  two 
hundred  years  later,  the  meaning  of  this  terse  provision
has  still  “proven  elusive.”    Sosa  v.  Alvarez-Machain,  542 
U. S.  692,  719  (2004).    At  the  same  time,  this  Court  has 
suggested  that  Congress  enacted  the  statute  to  afford 
federal  courts  jurisdiction  to  hear  tort  claims  related  to 
three  violations  of  international  law  that  were  already 
embodied  in  English  common  law:  violations  of  safe  con-
ducts  extended  to  aliens,  interference  with  ambassadors, 
and piracy.  Id., at 715; 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on 
the  Laws  of  England  68  (1769)  (Blackstone);  see  also
Bellia  &  Clark,  The  Alien  Tort  Statute  and  the  Law  of 
Nations,  78  U.  Chi.  L. Rev.  445  (2011)  (arguing  that  the
ATS meant to supply jurisdiction over a slightly larger set
of claims involving intentional torts by Americans against 
aliens).

In this case, the plaintiffs seek much more.  They want
the  federal  courts  to  recognize  a  new  cause  of  action,  one 
that did not exist at the time of the statute’s adoption, one 
that  Congress  has  never  authorized.    While  their  request
might  appear  inconsistent  with  Sosa’s  explanation  of  the
ATS’s modest origin, the plaintiffs say that a caveat later 
in the opinion saves them.  They point to a passage where
the Court went on to suggest that the ATS may also afford 
federal  judges  “discretion  [to]  conside[r]  [creating]  new 
cause[s] of action” if they “rest on a norm of international
character accepted by the civilized world and defined with 
a specificity comparable to the features of the [three] 18th-
century”  torts  the  Court  already  described.    542  U. S.,  at 
725. 

I harbor serious doubts about Sosa’s suggestion.  In our