Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 38.0

2 

JESNER v. ARAB BANK, PLC 

Opinion of ALITO, J. 

  According to Sosa, when the First Congress enacted the
ATS  in  1789,  it  assumed  that  the  statute  would  “have 
practical  effect  the  moment  it  became  law”  because  the 
general  common  law  “would  provide  a  cause  of  action  for 
[a] modest number of international law violations.”  Id., at 
724.  That assumption,  however,  depended  on  the  contin-
ued existence of the general common law.  And in 1938—a 
century  and  a  half  after  Congress  enacted  the  ATS—this 
Court  rejected  the  “fallacy”  underlying  the  general  com-
mon  law,  declaring  definitively  that  “[t]here  is  no  federal 
general common law.”  Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 
64, 78, 79 (1938).  That left the ATS in an awkward spot:
Congress  had  not  created  any  causes  of  action  for  the 
statute  on  the  assumption  that  litigants  would  use  those 
provided by the general common law, but now the general
common law was no more. 

In Sosa, this Court did its best to resolve that problem.
“[I]t  would  be  unreasonable  to  assume,”  the  Court  ex-
plained,  “that  the  First  Congress  would  have  expected 
federal courts to lose all capacity to recognize enforceable 
international norms simply because the [general] common 
law  might  lose  some  metaphysical  cachet  on  the  road  to 
modern realism.”  542 U. S., at 730.  Although the general
common law was gone, the Court concluded, federal courts
could still exercise their authority to create so-called “fed-
eral common law” for those “ ‘few and restricted’ ” areas “in 
which Congress has given the courts the power to develop 
substantive law.”  Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Mate-
rials, Inc., 451 U. S. 630, 640 (1981).  Sosa interpreted the 
ATS as conferring such authorization. 
  As  a  result,  Sosa  held  that  federal  courts,  subject  to
certain conditions, may “recognize private causes of action 
[under the ATS] for certain torts in violation of the law of
nations.”  542  U. S.,  at  724.    But  before  doing  so,  Sosa 
stressed,  courts  should  follow  a  two-step  process.    First, 
they  should  ensure  that  the  contemplated  cause  of  action