Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 37.0

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

1 

Opinion of ALITO, J. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 16–499 
_________________ 

JOSEPH JESNER, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.
 
ARAB BANK, PLC
 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
 

[April 24, 2018] 

JUSTICE ALITO, concurring in part and concurring in the

judgment. 

Creating  causes  of  action  under  the  Alien  Tort  Statute
against  foreign  corporate  defendants  would  precipitate 
exactly  the  sort  of  diplomatic  strife  that  the  law  was  en-
acted to prevent.  As a result, I agree with the Court that
we  should  not  take  that  step,  and  I  join  Parts  I,  II–B–1,
and II–C of the opinion of the Court.  I write separately to
elaborate  on  why  that  outcome  is  compelled  not  only  by 
“judicial  caution,”  ante,  at  27  (majority  opinion),  but  also
by the separation of powers. 

I 
The  ATS  is  a  jurisdictional  statute.  It  provides  that
“[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any
civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in viola-
tion of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” 
28  U. S. C.  §1350.    By  its  terms,  the  ATS  does  not  create
any causes of action.

In  Sosa v.  Alvarez-Machain, 542  U. S. 692 (2004), how-
ever,  this  Court  nevertheless  held  that  federal  courts, 
exercising  their  authority  in  limited  circumstances  to
make  federal  common  law,  may  create  causes  of  action 
that aliens may assert under the ATS.  That holding takes 
some explaining.