Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 
Opinion of the Court 

responsible  for  an  injury  to  a  foreign  citizen.    See  id.,  at 
715–719; Kiobel, 569 U. S., at 123–124. 

Over  the  first  190  years  or  so  after  its  enactment,  the 
ATS  was  invoked  but  a  few  times.    Yet  with  the  evolving
recognition—for  instance,  in  the  Nuremberg  trials  after 
World  War  II—that  certain  acts  constituting  crimes 
against  humanity  are  in  violation  of  basic  precepts  of 
international  law,  courts  began  to  give  some  redress  for 
violations  of  international  human-rights  protections  that 
are clear and unambiguous.  In the modern era this began
with  the  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Second 
Circuit in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876 (1980). 

In Filartiga, it was alleged that a young man had been
tortured  and  murdered  by  Peruvian  police  officers,  and
that  an  officer  named  Pena-Irala  was  one  of  the  supervi-
sors  and  perpetrators.    Some  members  of  the  victim’s 
family  were  in  the  United  States  on  visas.  When  they
discovered  that  Pena-Irala  himself  was  living  in  New 
York,  they  filed  suit  against  him.    The  action,  seeking
damages  for  the  suffering  and  death  he  allegedly  had 
caused,  was  filed  in  the  United  States  District  Court  for 
the  Eastern  District  of  New  York.    The  Court  of  Appeals
found that there was jurisdiction under the ATS.  For this 
holding it relied upon the universal acknowledgment that
acts  of  official  torture  are  contrary  to  the  law  of  nations. 
Id., at 890.  This Court did not review that decision. 

In  the  midst  of  debates  in  the  courts  of  appeals  over
whether the court in Filartiga was correct in holding that 
plaintiffs could bring ATS actions based on modern human- 
rights  laws  absent  an  express  cause  of  action  created 
by  an  additional  statute,  Congress  enacted  the  Torture 
Victim  Protection  Act  of  1991  (TVPA),  106  Stat.  73,  note 
following  28  U. S. C.  §1350.    H. R.  Rep.  No.  102–367, 
pp. 3–4 (1991) (H. R. Rep.) (citing Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab 
Republic,  726  F. 2d  774  (CADC  1984));  S. Rep.  No.  102–
249, pp. 3–5 (1991) (S. Rep.) (same).  The TVPA—which is