Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 56.0

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

13 

Opinion of GORSUCH, J. 

ing foreign defendants.4
  Any consideration of Sosa’s discretion must also account 
for  proper  limits  on  the  judicial  function.    As  discussed 
above,  federal  courts  generally  lack  the  institutional  ex-
pertise  and  constitutional  authority  to  oversee  foreign
policy and national security, and should be wary of stray-
ing  where  they  do  not  belong.    See  supra,  at  4–5.  Yet 
there are degrees of institutional incompetence and consti-
tutional evil.  It is one thing for courts to assume the task
of  creating  new  causes  of  action  to  ensure  our  citizens 
abide  by  the  law  of  nations  and  avoid  reprisals  against 
this  country.  It  is  altogether  another  thing  for  courts  to 
punish  foreign  parties  for  conduct  that  could  not  be  at-
tributed  to  the  United  States  and  thereby  risk  reprisals 
against  this  country.  If  a  foreign  state  or  citizen  violates 
an  “international  norm”  in  a  way  that  offends  another 
foreign  state  or  citizen,  the  Constitution  arms  the  Presi-
dent and Congress with ample means to address it.  Or, if 
they think best, the political branches may choose to look 
the  other  way.  But  in  all  events,  the  decision  to  impose
sanctions in disputes between foreigners over international 

—————— 

4 The  dissent  is  wrong  to  suggest,  post,  at  17,  that  Sosa  “forecloses” 
the  possibility  of  recognizing  a  U. S.-defendant  requirement  in  ATS 
cases.  Sosa  said  nothing  about  the  subject.    And  were  Sosa  taken  to 
preclude any future limits on ATS suits it did not itself anticipate, then 
Kiobel  must  have  been  wrong  to  apply  the  canon  against  extraterrito-
rial  application  to  that  statute.    But  that  is  not  so.    The  dissent  also 
observes that Sosa “involved an ATS suit brought by a citizen of Mexico 
against a citizen of Mexico,” and that certain amici in Sosa filed briefs 
arguing  that  the  Court  lacked  authority  over  the  ATS  claims  for  that 
reason.  See  post,  at  17.    But  Sosa  did  not  address  those  arguments; 
questions  that  “merely  lurk  in  the  record  are  not  resolved,  and  no 
resolution of them may be inferred.”  Illinois Bd. of Elections v. Social-
ist  Workers  Party,  440  U. S.  173,  183  (1979)  (citations  and  internal 
quotation  marks  omitted);  accord,  RJR  Nabisco,  Inc.  v.  European 
Community, 579 U. S. ___, ___, n. 10 (2016) (slip op., at 23, n. 10) (issue
present  but  unaddressed  by  the  Court  in  a  previous  case  was  not
implicitly decided).