Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 80.0

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

23 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

prefers  to  use  a  sledgehammer  to  crack  a  nut.    I  see  no 
need for such an ill-fitting and disproportionate response. 
Foreclosing  foreign  corporate  liability  in  all  ATS  actions, 
irrespective of circumstance or norm, is simply too broad a 
response  to  case-specific  concerns  that  can  be  addressed
via other means.9 

B 
1 
The  Court  urges  that  “[t]he  political  branches,  not  the
Judiciary, have the responsibility and institutional capacity 
to  weigh  foreign-policy  concerns.”    Ante,  at  19.    I  agree
that  the  political  branches  are  well  poised  to  assess  the
foreign-policy  concerns  attending  ATS  litigation,  which  is
why I give significant weight to the fact that the Executive 
Branch, in briefs signed by the Solicitor General and State 
Department  Legal  Advisor,  has  twice  urged  the  Court  to
reach exactly the opposite conclusion of the one embraced
by  the  majority.    See  Brief  for  United  States  as  Amicus 
Curiae  5  (“This  Court  should  vacate  the  decision  below,
which rests on the mistaken premise that a federal common-
law claim under the ATS may never be brought against a 
corporation”); Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in 
Kiobel  v.  Royal  Dutch  Petroleum  Co.,  O. T.  2012,  No.  10– 
1491,  p.  7  (“Courts  may  recognize  corporate  liability  in
actions  under  the  ATS  as  a  matter  of  federal  common 

—————— 

specific,  universal,  and  obligatory  norm  warranting  recognition  under 
the ATS; and petitioners might not be able to prove the requisite mens 
rea.  In addition, petitioners have asserted direct, rather than vicarious,
liability  against  respondent.    A  suit  based  on  only  vicarious  liability 
may raise different questions not presented here. 

9 The majority’s overly blunt rule is also unlikely to resolve any foreign-
relations  concerns  at  play  in  this  case.    Arab  Bank  is  still  being  sued
under  the  Antiterrorism  Act  of  1990  for  the  exact  same  conduct  as 
alleged  here.    It  is  also  hard  to  imagine  that  Jordan  would  have  been
perfectly  content  to  see  the  CEO  of  Arab  Bank  and  high-level  officials
at the New York branch sued under the ATS.