Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 78

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

21 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

in suing a corporation generally.  Instead, Jordan contends 
that  this  particular  suit  is  an  affront  to  its  sovereignty
because of its extraterritorial character and because of the 
role  that  Arab  Bank  specifically  plays  in  the  Jordanian 
economy.  See Brief for Hashemite Kingdom  of Jordan as 
Amicus Curiae 6–12.7 

The  majority  also  cites  to  instances  in  which  other 
foreign  sovereigns  have  “appeared  in  this  Court  to  note
[their]  objections  to  ATS  litigation,”  ante,  at  26,  but  none 
of those objections was about the availability of corporate 
liability as a general matter.  See Sosa, 542 U. S., at 733, 
n. 21 (noting argument of the European Commission that
“basic  principles  of  international  law  require  that  before
asserting  a  claim  in  a  foreign  forum,  the  claimant  must 
have  exhausted  any  remedies  available  in  the  domestic 
legal  system,  and  perhaps  in  other  forums  such  as  inter­
national  claims  tribunals”);  ibid.  (noting  objections  by
South  Africa  to  “several  class  actions  seeking  damages 
from  various  corporations  alleged  to  have  participated  in,
or abetted, the regime of apartheid” on the basis that the
cases  “interfere[d]  with  the  policy  embodied  by  its  Truth
and Reconciliation Commission”); Brief for Federal Repub­
lic of Germany as Amicus Curiae in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch 
Petroleum Co., O. T. 2012, No. 10–1491, p. 1 (“The Federal
Republic  of  Germany  has  consistently  maintained  its
opposition  to  overly  broad  assertions  of  extraterritorial
civil  jurisdiction  arising  out  of  aliens’  claims  against  for­
eign  defendants  for  alleged  foreign  activities  that  caused
injury on foreign soil”); Brief for Government of the United 

—————— 

7 Jordan  does  argue  that  corporate  liability  is  unavailable  under  the 
ATS, but that argument is based on its view that there is no universally
recognized  international-law  norm  of  corporate  liability,  see  Brief  for
Hashemite  Kingdom  of  Jordan  as  Amicus  Curiae  12–15,  not  a  conten­
tion that corporate status alone presents foreign-policy concerns justify­
ing  immunity  for  all  corporations  in  all  ATS  suits  irrespective  of 
circumstance.