Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 3

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

3 

Syllabus 

could  be  held  liable  in  actions  under  Bivens  v.  Six  Unknown  Fed. 
Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388. 

Neither the language of the ATS nor precedent supports an excep-
tion to these general principles in this context.  Separation-of-powers
concerns that counsel against courts creating private rights of action
apply  with  particular  force  in  the  context  of  the  ATS,  which  impli-
cates  foreign-policy  concerns  that  are  the  province  of  the  political
branches.  And courts must exercise “great caution” before recogniz-
ing new forms of liability under the ATS.  Sosa, supra, at 728.  The 
question whether a proper application of Sosa would preclude courts 
from ever recognizing new ATS causes of action need not be decided
here,  for  either  way  it  would  be  inappropriate  for  courts  to  extend 
ATS liability to foreign corporations absent further action from Con-
gress.  Pp. 18–19.

(c) The ATS was intended to promote harmony in international re-
lations  by  ensuring  foreign  plaintiffs  a  remedy  for  international-law 
violations when the absence of such a remedy might provoke foreign 
nations to hold the United States accountable.  But here, and in simi-
lar cases, the opposite is occurring.  Petitioners are foreign nationals 
seeking millions of dollars in damages from a major Jordanian finan-
cial institution for injuries suffered in attacks by foreign terrorists in
the  Middle  East.  The  only  alleged  connections  to  the  United  States 
are the CHIPS transactions in Arab Bank’s New York branch and a 
brief  allegation  about  a  charity  in  Texas.    At  a  minimum,  the  rela-
tively minor connection between the terrorist attacks and the alleged 
conduct  in  the  United  States  illustrates  the  perils  of  extending  the 
scope of ATS liability to foreign multinational corporations like Arab
Bank. 

For  13  years,  this  litigation  has  caused  considerable  diplomatic
tensions  with  Jordan,  a  critical  ally  that  considers  the  litigation  an 
affront to its sovereignty.  And this is not the first time that a foreign 
sovereign  has  raised  objections  to  ATS  litigation  in  this  Court.    See 
Sosa, supra, at 733, n. 21.  These are the very foreign-relations ten-
sions the First Congress sought to avoid.

Nor  are  the  courts  well  suited  to  make  the  required  policy  judg-
ments implicated by foreign corporate liability.  Like the presumption 
against  extraterritoriality,  judicial  caution  under  Sosa  “guards 
against our courts triggering . . . serious foreign policy consequences,
and instead defers such decisions, quite appropriately, to the political
branches.”  Kiobel, supra, at 124.  Accordingly, the Court holds  that
foreign  corporations  may  not  be  defendants  in  suits  brought  under
the ATS.  Pp. 25–27.  

JUSTICE KENNEDY, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE THOM-

AS, concluded in Parts II–A, II–B–2, II–B–3, and III: