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

10 

JESNER v. ARAB BANK, PLC 

Opinion of the Court 

codified  as  a  note  following  the  ATS—creates  an  express
cause  of  action  for  victims  of  torture  and  extrajudicial
killing in violation of international law. 

After  Filartiga  and  the  TVPA,  ATS  lawsuits  became 
more frequent.  Modern ATS litigation has the potential to
involve  large  groups  of  foreign  plaintiffs  suing  foreign 
corporations in the United States for alleged human-rights
violations  in  other  nations.    For  example,  in  Kiobel  the 
plaintiffs  were  Nigerian  nationals  who  sued  Dutch,  Brit-
ish, and Nigerian corporations for alleged crimes in Nige-
ria.  569  U. S.,  at  111–112.    The  extent  and  scope  of  this 
litigation  in  United  States  courts  have  resulted  in  criti-
cism here and abroad.  See id., at 124 (noting objections to
ATS  litigation  by  Canada,  Germany,  Indonesia,  Papua
New  Guinea,  South  Africa,  Switzerland,  and  the  United 
Kingdom).

In  Sosa,  the  Court  considered  the  question  whether 
courts  may  recognize  new,  enforceable  international 
norms in ATS lawsuits.  542 U. S., at 730–731.  The Sosa 
Court  acknowledged  the  decisions  made  in  Filartiga  and 
similar  cases;  and  it  held  that  in  certain  narrow  circum-
stances  courts  may  recognize  a  common-law  cause  of
action for claims based on the present-day law of nations,
in  addition  to  the  “historical  paradigms  familiar  when 
§1350  was  enacted.”  542  U. S.,  at  732.    The  Court  was 
quite  explicit,  however,  in  holding  that  ATS  litigation 
implicates  serious  separation-of-powers  and 
foreign-
relations  concerns.  Id.,  at  727–728.  Thus,  ATS  claims 
must be “subject to vigilant doorkeeping.”  Id., at 729. 

This  Court  next  addressed  the  ATS  in  Kiobel,  the  case 
already noted.  There, this Court held that “the presump-
tion against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the 
ATS, and that nothing in the statute rebuts the presump-
tion.”  569  U. S.,  at  124.    The  Court  added  that  “even 
where  the  claims  touch  and  concern  the  territory  of  the
United  States,  they  must  do  so  with  sufficient  force  to