Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 75

18 

JESNER v. ARAB BANK, PLC 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

have  expected  federal  courts  to  lose  all  capacity  to  recog­
nize  enforceable  international  norms  simply  because  the
common  law  might  lose  some  metaphysical  cachet  on  the
road  to  modern  realism”);  Sarei  v.  Rio  Tinto,  671  F. 3d 
736,  749–754  (CA9  2011)  (en  banc)  (discussing  Sosa  and 
concluding that federal courts have Article III jurisdiction
to hear ATS cases between aliens), vacated and remanded, 
569 U. S. 945 (2013) (remanding for further consideration
in light of Kiobel). 

Sosa  was  correct  as  a  legal  matter.    Moreover,  our  Na­
tion has an interest not only in providing a remedy when 
our own citizens commit law of nations violations, but also 
in  preventing  our  Nation  from  serving  as  a  safe  harbor 
for  today’s  pirates.    See  Kiobel,  569  U. S.,  at  133–134 
(BREYER,  J.,  concurring  in  judgment).    To  that  end,  Con­
gress has ratified treaties requiring the United States “to
punish  or  extradite  offenders,  even  when  the  offense  was 
not  committed  . . .  by  a  national.”  1  Restatement  §404, 
Reporters’  Note  1,  at  255–257;  see  Torture  Convention, 
Arts. 5, 7; Convention on the Prevention and Punishment 
of  Crimes  Against  Internationally  Protected  Persons,
Including  Diplomatic  Agents,  Art.  3,  Dec.  14,  1973,  28
U. S. T.  1975,  T. I. A. S.  No.  8532;  Convention  for  the 
Suppression  of  Unlawful  Acts  Against  the  Safety  of  Civil 
Aviation,  Sept.  23,  1971,  24  U. S. T.  565,  T. I. A. S.  No.
7570; Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure
of  Aircraft,  Art.  4,  Dec.  16,  1970,  22  U. S. T.  1641, 
T. I. A. S.  No.  7192;  Geneva  Convention  Relative  to  the 
Treatment of Prisoners of War, Art. 129, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 
U. S. T.  3316,  T. I. A. S.  No.  3364.    To  the  extent  suits 
against  foreign  defendants  may  lead  to  international
friction,  that  concern  is  better  addressed  under  the  pre­
sumption the Court established in Kiobel against extrater­
ritorial application of the ATS, see 569 U. S., at 124–125,
than it is by relitigating settled precedent.