Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-416_i4dj.pdf
Page Number: 13

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

11 

Opinion of the Court
Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

When we decided Sosa, we remarked that there is “no ba-
sis to suspect Congress had any examples in mind beyond 
th[ree] torts” when it enacted the ATS.  542 U. S., at 724. 
We “assume[d]” that no “development” of law had yet “pre-
cluded federal courts from recognizing” causes of action not 
created by Congress.  Id., at 724–725.  Nobody here has ex-
pressly asked us to revisit Sosa.  But precedents since Sosa 
have  substantially  narrowed  the  circumstances  in  which 
“judicial discretion” under the Sosa test is permitted.  Id., 
at  726,  736,  and  n. 27.    Under  existing  precedent,  then, 
courts in some circumstances might still apply Sosa to rec-
ognize causes of action for the three historical torts likely 
on the mind of the First Congress.  But as to other torts, our 
precedents already make clear that there always is a sound 
reason  to  defer  to  Congress,  so  courts  may  not  create  a 
cause of action for those torts.  Whether and to what extent 
defendants should be liable under the ATS for torts beyond 
the three historical torts identified in Sosa lies within the 
province of the Legislative Branch. 

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the 

cases are remanded for further proceedings. 

*

*

* 

It is so ordered.