Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 25

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

19 

Opinion of the Court 
Opinion of KENNEDY, J. 

“marked  extension”  of  Bivens  that  was  unnecessary  to
advance  its  purpose  of  holding  individual  officers  respon-
sible  for  “engaging 
in  unconstitutional  wrongdoing.” 
Malesko,  534  U. S.,  at  74.    Whether  corporate  defendants
should be subject to suit was “a question for Congress, not
us, to decide.”  Id., at 72. 

Neither  the  language  of  the  ATS  nor  the  precedents 
interpreting it support an exception to these general prin-
ciples  in  this  context.  In  fact,  the  separation-of-powers
concerns  that  counsel  against  courts  creating  private
rights  of  action  apply  with  particular  force  in  the  context
of  the  ATS.  See  infra,  at  25–26.    The  political  branches,
not the Judiciary, have the responsibility and institutional
capacity to weigh foreign-policy concerns.  See Kiobel, 569 
U. S.,  at  116–117.  That  the  ATS  implicates  foreign  rela-
tions “is itself a reason for a high bar to new private causes
of  action  for  violating  international  law.”  Sosa,  supra, 
at 727. 

In Sosa, the Court emphasized that federal courts must
exercise  “great  caution”  before  recognizing  new  forms  of
liability under the ATS.  542 U. S., at 728.  In light of the 
foreign-policy  and  separation-of-powers  concerns  inherent 
in  ATS  litigation,  there  is  an  argument  that  a  proper
application of Sosa would preclude courts from ever recog-
nizing  any  new  causes  of  action  under  the  ATS.    But  the 
Court  need  not  resolve  that  question  in  this  case.  Either 
way,  absent  further  action  from  Congress  it  would  be
inappropriate for courts to extend ATS liability to foreign
corporations. 

2 
Even  in  areas  less  fraught  with  foreign-policy  conse-
quences,  the  Court  looks  to  analogous  statutes  for  guid-
ance  on  the  appropriate  boundaries  of  judge-made  causes
of action.  See, e.g., Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U. S. 
19,  24  (1990);  Blue  Chip  Stamps  v.  Manor  Drug  Stores,