Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 39

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

3 

Opinion of ALITO, J. 

reflects  an  international  law  norm  that  is  “ ‘specific,  uni-
versal and obligatory.’ ”  Id., at 732.  Second, if a suitable 
norm  is  identified,  federal  courts  should  decide  whether 
there  is  any  other  reason  to  limit  “the  availability  of  re-
lief.”  Id., at 733, n. 21. 

II 
For  the  reasons  articulated  by  Justice  Scalia  in  Sosa 
and  by  JUSTICE  GORSUCH  today,  I  am  not  certain  that 
Sosa was correctly decided.  See id., at 739–751 (Scalia, J., 
dissenting);  post,  at  2–5  (GORSUCH, J.,  concurring  in  part 
and  concurring  in  judgment).  But  even  taking  that  deci-
sion on its own terms, this Court should not create causes 
of action under the ATS against foreign corporate defend-
ants.  As part of Sosa’s second step, a court should decline 
to create a cause of action as a matter of federal common 
law  where  the  result  would  be  to  further,  not  avoid,  dip-
lomatic  strife.    Properly  applied,  that  rule  easily  resolves
the question presented by this case.* 

Sosa interpreted the ATS to authorize the federal courts
to  create  causes  of  action  as  a  matter  of  federal  common 
law.  We  have  repeatedly  emphasized  that  “in  fashioning 
federal  [common  law]  principles to  govern  areas  left  open 
by  Congress,  our  function  is  to  effectuate  congressional
policy.”  United  States  v.  Kimbell  Foods,  Inc.,  440  U. S. 
715,  738  (1979).  Fidelity  to  congressional  policy  is  not 
only  prudent  but  necessary:  Going  beyond  the  bounds  of
Congress’s  authorization  would  mean  unconstitutionally 
usurping  part  of  the  “legislative  Powers.”    U. S.  Const., 
Art.  I,  §1.    Accordingly,  the  objective  for  courts  in  every
case requiring the creation of federal common law must be 

—————— 

* Because this case involves a foreign corporation, we have no need to 
reach the question whether an alien may sue a United States corpora-
tion under the ATS.  And since such a suit may generally be brought in 
federal  court  based  on  diversity  jurisdiction,  28  U. S. C.  §1332(a)(2),  it
is unclear why ATS jurisdiction would be needed in that situation.