Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 48.0

Cite as:  584 U. S. ____ (2018) 

5 

Opinion of GORSUCH, J. 

Law of Nations” and to regulate foreign commerce.  U. S. 
Const.,  Art.  I.,  §8.    And  it  is  for  the  President  to  resolve 
diplomatic disputes and command the armed forces.  Art. 
II,  §§2–3.    Foreign  policy  and  national  security  decisions
are  “delicate,  complex,  and  involve  large  elements  of 
prophecy”  for  which  “the  Judiciary  has  neither  aptitude, 
facilities[,]  nor  responsibility.”  Chicago  &  Southern  Air 
Lines,  Inc.  v.  Waterman  S.  S.  Corp.,  333  U. S.  103,  111 
(1948)  (Jackson,  J.).  And  I  find  it  difficult  to  imagine  a
case in which a federal court might safely conclude other-
wise.    Take  this  very  lawsuit  by  way  of  example.    The  
Kingdom  of  Jordan  considers  it  to  be  “a  ‘grave  affront’  to 
its  sovereignty,”  and  the  State  Department  worries  about
its  foreign  policy  implications.  Ante,  at  26.    Whether 
American  interests  justify  the  “practical  consequence”  of 
offending  another  nation  in  this  way  (or  in  worse  ways
yet) is a question that should be addressed “only by those 
directly  responsible  to  the  people  whose  welfare”  such 
decisions  “advance  or  imperil.”    Waterman  S.  S.  Corp., 
supra,  at  111.    So  while  I  have  no  quarrel  with  the  dis-
sent’s observation, post, at 15–16, that lower federal courts 
are  not  free  to  overrule  Sosa’s  framework  or  treat  it  as 
optional, I do know that the analysis Sosa requires should
come out the same way in virtually every case.  If Sosa is 
right—and I am sure it is—that federal courts must “inev-
itably”  exercise  “an  element  of  judgment”  about  delicate 
questions  of  foreign  affairs  when  deciding  whether  to
create  a  new  cause  of  action,  then  judges  should  exercise 
good  judgment  by  declining  the  project  before  we  create
real trouble. 

II 

Another independent problem lurks here.  This is a suit 
by  foreigners  against  a  foreigner  over  the  meaning  of 
international  norms.  Respectfully,  I  do  not  think  the 
original  understanding  of  the  ATS  or  our  precedent  per-