Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 28

22 

JESNER v. ARAB BANK, PLC 

Opinion of the Court 
Opinion of KENNEDY, J. 

Guinea’s  military  to  commit  genocide),  vacated  and  re-
manded, 569 U. S. 945 (2013).

Petitioners contend that, instead of the TVPA, the most 
analogous  statute  here  is  the  Anti-Terrorism  Act.    That 
Act  does  permit  suits  against  corporate  entities.    See  18 
U. S. C. §§ 2331(3), 2333(d)(2).  In fact, in these suits some 
of  the  foreign  plaintiffs  joined  their  claims  to  those  of 
United States nationals suing Arab Bank under the Anti-
Terrorism  Act.  But  the  Anti-Terrorism  Act  provides  a
cause  of  action  only  to  “national[s]  of  the  United  States,” 
and  their  “estate,  survivors,  or  heirs.”  §2333(a).  In  con-
trast, the ATS is available only for claims brought by “an
alien.”  28 U. S. C. §1350.  A statute that excludes foreign 
nationals (with the possible exception of foreign survivors 
or  heirs)  is  an  inapt  analogy  for  a  common-law  cause  of 
action that provides a remedy for foreign nationals only.

To the extent, furthermore, that the Anti-Terrorism Act 
is  relevant  it  suggests  that  there  should  be  no  common-
law action under the ATS for allegations like petitioners’. 
Otherwise,  foreign  plaintiffs  could  bypass  Congress’  ex-
press limitations on liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act 
simply  by  bringing  an  ATS  lawsuit.    The  Anti-Terrorism 
Act, as mentioned above, is part of a comprehensive statu-
tory  and  regulatory  regime  that  prohibits  terrorism  and
terrorism  financing.    The  detailed  regulatory  structures
prescribed  by  Congress  and  the  federal  agencies  charged 
with  oversight  of  financial  institutions  reflect  the  careful 
deliberation  of  the  political  branches  on  when,  and  how, 
banks should be held liable for the financing of terrorism.
It  would  be  inappropriate  for  courts  to  displace  this  con-
sidered  statutory  and  regulatory  structure  by  holding
banks  subject  to  common-law  liability  in  actions  filed 
under the ATS. 

In  any  event,  even  if  the  Anti-Terrorism  Act  were  a
suitable  model  for  an  ATS  suit,  Congress’  decision  in  the 
TVPA  to  limit  liability  to  individuals  still  demonstrates