Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-416_i4dj.pdf
Page Number: 16

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

3 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

tained against corporations for torts . . . of nearly every va-
riety.”  Philadelphia,  W., & B. R. Co. v. Quigley, 21 How. 
202, 210 (1859); see also, e.g., Chestnut Hill & Spring House 
Turnpike  Co.  v.  Rutter,  4  Serg.  &  Rawle  6,  17  (Pa.  1818) 
(“[F]rom the earliest times to the present, corporations have
been held liable for torts”).  Justice Story deemed the point 
“unquestionable.”  United States v. Amedy, 11 Wheat. 392, 
412 (1826).  And by the late 19th century, the proposition
that tort actions could be brought against corporations was
“so well settled as not to require the citation of any author-
ities.”  Baltimore & Potomac R. Co. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 
108 U. S. 317, 330 (1883).

More evidence yet lies in the circumstances surrounding
the ATS’s adoption.  It seems Congress enacted the statute 
as part of a comprehensive effort to ensure judicial recourse 
for tortious conduct that otherwise could have provided for-
eign nations “with just cause for reprisals or war.”  Bellia & 
Clark, The Alien Tort Statute and the Law of Nations, 78 
U.  Chi.  L.  Rev.  445,  476–477  (2011);  see  Jesner  v.  Arab 
Bank, PLC, 584 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2018) (GORSUCH, J., con-
curring in part and concurring in judgment).  In particular,
Congress may have had an eye on three specific problems: 
violations of safe conduct, interference with ambassadors, 
and  piracy.    On  the  view  of  many,  Blackstone  included,
these three offenses entailed not just injuries to the affected 
individuals but to their nation-states.  4 Commentaries on 
the Laws of England 68 (1769).  So, if Americans engaged 
in them, and if American courts provided foreigners no re-
course of any kind, European powers would have had just
cause to bully the new Nation.  Id., at 68–69. 

In that context, distinguishing between individuals and 
corporations  would  seem  to  make  little  sense.  If  early
Americans assaulted or abducted the French Ambassador, 
what difference would it have made if the culprits acted in-
dividually or corporately?  Either way, this Nation’s failure