Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 34.0

28 

JESNER v. ARAB BANK, PLC 

Opinion of the Court 
Opinion of KENNEDY, J. 

and accountable to, the electorate. 

It is still another possibility that, in the careful exercise
of  its  expertise  in  the  field  of  foreign  affairs,  Congress 
might  conclude  that  neutral  judicial  safeguards  may  not 
be  ensured  in  every  country;  and  so,  as  a  reciprocal  mat-
ter, it could determine that liability of foreign corporations
under  the  ATS  should  be  subject  to  some  limitations  or 
preconditions.  Congress  might  deem  this  more  careful 
course to be the best way to encourage American corpora-
tions  to  undertake  the  extensive  investments  and  foreign
operations  that  can  be  an  important  beginning  point  for 
creating  the  infrastructures  that  allow  human  rights,  as 
well  as  judicial  safeguards,  to  emerge.    These  delicate 
judgments, involving a balance that it is the prerogative of 
the  political  branches  to  make,  especially  in  the  field  of 
foreign  affairs,  would,  once  again,  also  be  entitled  to  spe-
cial  respect,  especially  because  those  careful  distinctions 
might  themselves  advance  the  Rule  of  Law.  All  this  un-
derscores  the  important  separation-of-powers  concerns
that  require  the  Judiciary  to  refrain  from  making  these
kinds of decisions under the ATS.  The political branches,
moreover,  surely  are  better  positioned  than  the  Judiciary 
to  determine  if  corporate  liability  would,  or  would  not, 
create  special  risks  of  disrupting  good  relations  with  for-
eign governments.

Finally,  Congress  might  find  that  corporate  liability 
should  be  limited  to  cases  where  a  corporation’s  manage-
ment was actively complicit in the crime.  Cf. ALI, Model 
Penal  Code  §2.07(1)(c)  (1985)  (a  corporation  may  be  held
criminally liable where “the commission of the offense was 
authorized, requested, commanded, performed or recklessly 
tolerated by the board of directors or by a high managerial
agent acting on behalf of the corporation within the scope
of his office or employment”).  Again, the political branches
are  better  equipped  to  make  the  preliminary  findings 
and  consequent  conclusions  that  should  inform  this