Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2017 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

JESNER ET AL. v. ARAB BANK, PLC 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

No. 16–499.  Argued October 11, 2017—Decided April 24, 2018 

Petitioners filed suits under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), alleging that 
they, or the persons on whose behalf they assert claims, were injured 
or killed by terrorist acts committed abroad, and that those acts were
in part caused or facilitated by respondent Arab Bank, PLC, a Jorda-
nian  financial  institution  with  a  branch  in  New  York.   They  seek  to
impose liability on the bank for the conduct of its human agents, in-
cluding  high-ranking  bank  officials.    They  claim  that  the  bank  used
its  New  York  branch  to  clear  dollar-denominated  transactions  that 
benefited terrorists through the Clearing House Interbank Payments
System (CHIPS) and to launder money for a Texas-based charity al-
legedly affiliated with Hamas.  While the litigation was pending, this 
Court  held,  in  Kiobel  v.  Royal  Dutch  Petroleum  Co.,  569  U. S.  108, 
that  the  ATS  does  not  extend  to  suits  against  foreign  corporations 
when “all the relevant conduct took place outside the United States,” 
id., at 124, but it left unresolved the Second Circuit’s broader holding
in its Kiobel decision: that foreign corporations may not be sued un-
der  the  ATS.    Deeming  that  broader  holding  binding  precedent,  the
District Court dismissed petitioners’ ATS claims and the Second Cir-
cuit affirmed.  

Held: The judgment is affirmed. 

808 F. 3d 144, affirmed.   

JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to
Parts  I,  II–B–1,  and  II–C,  concluding  that  foreign  corporations  may
not be defendants in suits brought under the ATS.  Pp. 6–11, 18–19, 
and 25–27. 

(a) The  Judiciary  Act  of  1789  included  what  is  now  known  as  the
ATS, which provides: “The district courts shall have original jurisdic-
tion of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in viola-