Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 85.0

28 

JESNER v. ARAB BANK, PLC 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

tions for law-of-nations violations under the ATS. 

The  plurality  dismisses  the  ATA  as  “an  inapt  analogy” 

because  the  ATA  “provides  a  cause  of  action  only  to  ‘na­
tional[s] of the United States,’ ” whereas the ATS “provides 
a remedy for foreign nationals only.”  Ante, at 22 (quoting
18  U. S. C.  §2333(a)).  But  if  encompassing  different
groups of plaintiffs is what makes two statutes poor com­
parators for each other, the TVPA, too, is an inapt analogy,
for  it  permits  suits  by  all  individuals,  U. S.  and  foreign 
nationals alike. 

The  plurality  also  posits  that  the  ATA  “suggests  that
there should be no common-law action under the ATS for 
allegations  like  petitioners’,”  ante,  at  22,  because  permit­
ting  such  suits  would  allow  foreign  plaintiffs  to  “bypass
Congress’ express limitations on liability under the [ATA] 
simply by bringing an ATS lawsuit,” ibid.  Yet an ATS suit 
alleging  terrorism-related  conduct  does  not  “bypass”  or 
“displace”  any  “statutory  and  regulatory  structure,”  ibid., 
any  more  than  an  ATA  suit  does.    As  this  case  demon­
strates,  U. S.  nationals  and  foreign  citizens  may  bring 
ATA  and  ATS  suits  in  the  same  court,  at  the  same  time, 
for the same underlying conduct.  To the extent the plural­
ity  is  suggesting  that  Congress,  in  enacting  the  ATA,
meant to foreclose ATS suits based on terrorism financing, 
the plurality offers no evidence to support that hypothesis, 
and the legislative history suggests that Congress enacted 
the  ATA  to  provide  U. S.  citizens  with  the  same  remedy
already  available  to  foreign  citizens  under  the  ATS.    See 
Hearing  on  S.  2465  before  the  Subcommittee  on  Courts
and  Administrative  Practice  of  the  Senate  Committee  on 
the Judiciary, 101st Cong., 1st Sess., 90 (1990) (testimony 
of Joseph A. Morris) (noting that ATS actions for terrorism 
“would be preserved”).

At  bottom,  the  ATS  and  TVPA  are  related  but  distinct 
statutes  that  coexist  independently.    There  is  no  basis  to 
conclude  that  the  considered  judgment  Congress  made