Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-416_i4dj.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

10 

NESTLE USA, INC. v. DOE 

Opinion of the Court
Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

plaintiffs  to  sue  the  immediate  “perpetrator”  of  a  human 
trafficking violation.  §4(a)(4)(A), 117 Stat. 2878.  And then 
in 2008, Congress created  the present private right  of  ac-
tion, allowing plaintiffs to sue defendants who are involved 
indirectly with slavery.  §§221, 222(b)(3),  122 Stat. 5067– 
5068. 

This Act highlights that there are many different ways to 
create a cause of action that would enforce developments in 
international  law  beyond  the  three  historical torts  identi-
fied in Sosa—too many for courts to choose from when using 
the  limited  judicial  discretion  that  Sosa  recognizes.  Con-
gress may well decide to create a cause of action against one 
category  of  defendants  but  not  another.   See  Jesner,  584 
U. S., at ___ (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 20) (recognizing 
that Congress “unambiguously” limited the only legislative 
cause of action passed under the ATS to one category of de-
fendants).  Or it might make distinctions—as it did in the 
TVPRA—between  direct  and  indirect  liability.  Congress 
settled on the current approach to private remedies against 
human trafficking only after its “understanding of the prob-
lem evolved” through years of studying “how to best craft a 
response.”  Brief for Members of Congress as Amici Curiae 
9, 13.  The judicial role is to resolve cases and controversies, 
which typically present only the perspectives of the parties. 
The Judiciary does not have the “institutional capacity” to 
consider  all  factors  relevant  to  creating  a  cause  of  action 
that  will  “inherent[ly]”  affect  foreign  policy.  Jesner,  584 
U. S., at ___ (majority opinion) (slip op., at 19).  Respond-
ents  attempt  to  brush aside  these concerns  by suggesting 
that their allegations about decades-old conduct could sat-
isfy  the TVPRA  if  Congress  had  enacted that law  earlier. 
This observation simply proves the point.  Congress chose 
not to write a retroactive statute.  To create a cause of ac-
tion here would impermissibly second-guess Congress’ de-
cision not to subject past conduct to a new standard.