Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 
Opinion of KENNEDY, J. 

displace  the  presumption  against  extraterritorial  applica-
tion.”  Id., at 124–125. 

II 
With  these  principles  in  mind,  this  Court  now  must
decide  whether  common-law  liability  under  the  ATS  ex-
tends to a foreign corporate defendant.  It could be argued,
under  the  Court’s  holding  in  Kiobel,  that  even  if,  under 
accepted  principles  of  international  law  and  federal  com-
mon  law,  corporations  are  subject  to  ATS  liability  for 
human-rights crimes committed by their human agents, in 
this  case  the  activities  of  the  defendant  corporation  and
the  alleged  actions  of  its  employees  have  insufficient 
connections  to  the  United  States  to  subject  it  to  jurisdic-
tion under the ATS.  Various amici urge this as a rationale
to  affirm  here,  while  the  Government  argues  that  the 
Court should remand this case so the Court of Appeals can 
address the issue in the first instance.  There are substan-
tial arguments on both sides of that question; but it is not 
the question on which this Court granted certiorari, nor is
it the question that has divided the Courts of Appeals.

The question whether foreign corporations are subject to 
liability under the ATS should be addressed; for, if there is 
no liability for Arab Bank, the lengthy and costly litigation
concerning  whether  corporate  contacts  like  those  alleged 
here  suffice  to  impose  liability  would  be  pointless.    In 
addition, a remand to the Court of Appeals would require
prolonging  litigation  that  already  has  caused  significant 
diplomatic  tensions  with  Jordan  for  more  than  a  decade.
So  it  is  proper  for  this  Court  to  decide  whether  corpora-
tions, or at least foreign corporations, are subject to liabil-
ity in an ATS suit filed in a United States district court.

Before recognizing a common-law action under the ATS,
federal courts must apply the test announced in Sosa.  An 
initial,  threshold  question  is  whether  a  plaintiff  can 
demonstrate that the alleged violation is “of a norm that is