Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 5

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

5 

Syllabus 

(d) In making its determination, Congress might decide that viola-
tions  of  international  law  do,  or  should,  impose  that  liability  to  en-
sure that corporations make every effort to deter human-rights viola-
tions,  and  so  that  compensation  for  injured  persons  will  be  a  cost  of 
doing  business.    Or  Congress  could  conclude  that  neutral  judicial 
safeguards may not be ensured in every country and that, as a recip-
rocal matter, ATS liability for foreign corporations should be subject
to  some  limitations  or  preconditions.    Finally,  Congress  might  find
that  corporate  liability  should  be  limited  to  cases  where  a  corpora-
tion’s management was actively complicit in the crime.  Pp. 27–29.

JUSTICE  ALITO  concluded  that  the  outcome  in  this  case  is  justified 
not  only  by  “judicial  caution”  but  also  by  the  separation  of  powers. 
Assuming that Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U. S. 692, correctly held 
that federal courts, exercising their authority in limited circumstanc-
es  to  make  federal  common  law,  may  create  causes  of  action  under
the  ATS,  this  Court  should  not  create  such  causes  of  action  against 
foreign corporate defendants.  The objective for courts in any case re-
quiring the creation of federal common law must be “to find the rule 
that  will  best  effectuate  the  federal  policy.”    Textile  Workers  v.  Lin-
coln Mills of Ala., 353 U. S. 448, 457.  The First Congress enacted the 
ATS to help the United States avoid diplomatic friction.  Putting that
objective together with the rules governing federal common law gen-
erally, the following principle emerges: Federal courts should decline
to  create  federal  common  law  causes  of  action  whenever  doing  so 
would  not  materially  advance  the  ATS’s  objective  of  avoiding  diplo-
matic  strife.    Applying  that  principle  here,  it  is  clear  that  courts 
should not create causes of action under the ATS against foreign cor-
porate  defendants.    Customary  international  law  does  not  generally 
require  corporate  liability,  so  declining  to  create  it  under  the  ATS 
cannot give other nations just cause for complaint against the United
States.  To the contrary, creating causes of action against foreign cor-
porations under the ATS may instead provoke exactly the sort of dip-
lomatic strife inimical to the statute’s fundamental purpose.  Pp. 1–7.
JUSTICE  GORSUCH  concluded  that  there  are  two  more  fundamental 

reasons why this lawsuit should be dismissed.  Pp. 1–14.

(a) This  Court  has  suggested  that  Congress  originally  enacted  the
ATS 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  conducts  extended  to  aliens, 
interference with ambassadors, and piracy.  Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 
542 U. S. 692, 715.  Here, 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 nev-
er  authorized.  They  find  support  in  a  passage  suggesting  that  the