Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 82.0

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

25 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

defendants in ATS actions. 

2 
The  plurality  instead  purports  to  defer  to  Congress  by
relying  heavily  on  the  Torture  Victim  Protection  Act  of
1991  (TVPA),  106  Stat.  73,  note  following  28  U. S. C.
§1350, to support its categorical bar.  See ante, at 20.  The 
TVPA  makes  available  to  all  individuals,  not  just  foreign
citizens, a civil cause of action for torture and extrajudicial
killing that may be brought against natural persons.  See 
Mohamad  v.  Palestinian  Authority,  566  U. S.  449,  451– 
452, 454 (2012).  The plurality extrapolates from Congress’
decision regarding the scope of liability under the TVPA a 
rule  that  it  contends  should  govern  all  ATS  suits.  See 
ante, at 20.  But there is no reason to think that because 
Congress  saw  fit  to  permit  suits  only  against  natural
persons for two specific law-of-nations violations, Congress 
meant to foreclose corporate liability for all law-of-nations 
violations.  The plurality’s contrary conclusion ignores the 
critical textual differences between the ATS and TVPA, as 
well  as  the  TVPA’s  legislative  history,  which  emphasizes
Congress’ intent to leave the ATS undisturbed. 

On its face, the TVPA is different from the ATS in sev­
eral  significant  ways:  It  is  focused  on  only  two  law-of­
nations  violations,  torture  and  extrajudicial  killing;  it 
makes  a  cause  of  action  available  to  all  individuals,  not 
just  foreign  citizens;  and  it  uses  the  word  “individual”  to
delineate  who  may  be  liable.    See  28  U. S. C.  §1350  note.
The ATS, by contrast, is concerned with all law-of-nations
violations  generally,  makes  a  cause  of  action  available 
only  to  foreign  citizens,  and  is  silent  as  to  who  may  be 
liable.  Because of the textual differences between the two 
statutes,  the  Court  unanimously  concluded  in  Mohamad 
that the ATS “offers no comparative value” in ascertaining
the  scope  of  liability  under  the  TVPA.  566  U. S.,  at  458. 
It makes little sense, then, to conclude that the TVPA has