Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-416_i4dj.pdf
Page Number: 31.0

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

11 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring
Opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J. 

to  hold  defendants  liable  for  their  torts  under  the  ATS. 
Sosa, 542 U. S., at 732.  On the contrary, the fact that Con-
gress authorized victims of slavery to sue perpetrators un-
der  the  TVPRA  provides  strong  evidence  that  Congress 
would not, in fact, doubt the efficacy of permitting victims 
of slavery to sue perpetrators under the ATS (insofar as the 
plaintiffs seek a domestic application of the statute). 

JUSTICE THOMAS replies that, because the TVPRA is not 
“a  retroactive  statute,”  entertaining  respondents’  suit 
would “impermissibly second-guess Congress’ decision not 
to  subject  past  conduct  to  a  new  standard.”  Ante,  at  10. 
Surely JUSTICE THOMAS does not mean that the prohibition 
against child slavery is a “new standard.”  Nor is it tenable 
to argue that, at the time respondents were enslaved on Ivo-
rian  cocoa  farms,  international  law  permitted  the  aiding 
and  abetting  of  forced  labor.6  Perhaps  JUSTICE  THOMAS 
means  to  argue  that,  by  adding  a  cause  of  action  to  the 
TVPRA in 2008, Congress implicitly foreclosed the availa-
bility  of  similar causes of  action  under  the  ATS.  But the 
legislative  history  says  otherwise:  The  Conference  Report 
that accompanied the original TVPRA took pains to empha-
size “that nothing in [the TVPRA] will preclude trafficking 
victims from availing themselves of applicable State, local 
or  other  Federal  laws  in  seeking  compensatory  or  other 
damages  and  relief  in  any  civil  proceeding.”7  H. R.  Conf. 

—————— 

6 See,  e.g.,  Khulumani  v.  Barclay  Nat.  Bank  Ltd.,  504  F. 3d  254, 
268–277 (CA2 2007) (Katzmann, J., concurring) (surveying aiding-and-
abetting liability under international law). 

7 JUSTICE  GORSUCH  also  points  out  that  “[t]he  one  time  Congress 
deemed a new ATS action worth having, it created that action itself in 
the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 [(TVPA)].”  Post, at 5 (concur-
ring opinion).  But JUSTICE GORSUCH fails to mention what the Commit-
tee  Reports  accompanying  that  statute  actually  said:  that  while  the 
TVPA  “establish[ed]  an  unambiguous  and  modern  basis  for  a  cause  of 
action” to sue perpetrators of torture and extrajudicial killing, the ATS 
“has other important uses and should not be replaced.”  H. R. Rep. No.