Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-416_i4dj.pdf
Page Number: 2

2 

NESTLE USA, INC. v. DOE 

Syllabus 

applies only domestically and asks “whether the statute gives a clear, 
affirmative  indication”  that  rebuts  the  presumption.  RJR  Nabisco, 
Inc.  v.  European  Community,  579  U. S.  325,  337.    As  the  Court  has 
already held, the ATS does not rebut the presumption of domestic ap-
plication.  Kiobel, 569 U. S., at 124.  In fact, the ATS does not expressly
“regulate conduct” at all, much less “evince a ‘clear indication of extra-
territoriality.’ ”  Id., at 115–118.  Second, where the statute, as here, 
does  not  apply  extraterritorially,  plaintiffs  must  establish  that  “the 
conduct relevant to the statute’s focus occurred in the United States 
. . . even if other conduct occurred abroad.”  RJR Nabisco, 579 U. S., at 
337. 

The  parties  dispute  what  conduct  is  relevant  to  the  “focus”  of  the 
ATS, but even if this dispute were resolved in respondents’ favor, their 
complaint would impermissibly seek extraterritorial application of the
ATS.  Nearly all the conduct they allege aided and abetted forced la-
bor—providing  training,  equipment,  and  cash  to  overseas  farmers—
occurred  in  Ivory  Coast.  Pleading  general  corporate  activity,  like 
“mere corporate presence,” Kiobel, 569 U. S., at 125, does not draw a 
sufficient connection between the cause of action respondents seek and
domestic conduct.  To plead facts sufficient to support a domestic ap-
plication of the ATS, plaintiffs must allege more domestic conduct than 
general corporate activity common to most corporations.  Pp. 3–5. 

THOMAS, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the 
opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II, in which ROBERTS, 
C. J., and BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BAR-
RETT, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part III, in which GOR-
SUCH and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined.  GORSUCH, J., filed a concurring opin-
ion, in which ALITO, J., joined as to Part I, and in which KAVANAUGH, J., 
joined as to Part II.  SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in part
and concurring in the judgment, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined. 
ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion.