Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 79

22 

JESNER v. ARAB BANK, PLC 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Northern  Ireland  et al.  as 
Amici  Curiae  in  No.  10–1491,  p. 3  (“The  Governments
remain deeply concerned about . . . suits by foreign plain­
tiffs  against  foreign  defendants  for  conduct  that  entirely
took place in the territory of a foreign sovereign”). 

As  the  United  States  urged  at  oral  argument,  when 
international  friction  arises,  a  court  should  respond  with
the  doctrine  that  speaks  directly  to  the  friction’s  source. 
See  Tr.  of  Oral.  Arg.  28  (acknowledging  that  “ATS  litiga­
tion  in  recent  decades  has  raised  international  friction” 
and  explaining  that  “the  way  to  deal  with  that  friction  is
with  a  doctrine  that  speaks  directly  to  the  international
entanglement . . . as those questions arise”).  In addition to 
the presumption against extraterritoriality, federal courts
have  at  their  disposal  a  number  of  tools  to  address  any 
foreign-relations  concerns  that  an  ATS  case  may  raise. 
This  Court  has  held  that  a  federal  court  may  exercise 
personal  jurisdiction  over  a  foreign  corporate  defendant 
only  if  the  corporation  is  incorporated  in  the  United
States,  has  its  principal  place  of  business  or  is  otherwise 
at home here, or if the activities giving rise to the lawsuit 
occurred  or  had  their  impact  here.    See  Daimler  AG  v. 
Bauman,  571  U. S.  117  (2014).    Courts  also  can  dismiss 
ATS suits for a plaintiff ’s failure to exhaust the remedies 
available in her domestic forum, on forum non conveniens 
grounds,  for  reasons  of  international  comity,  or  when
asked to  do so by  the  State  Department.   See Kiobel, 569 
U. S.,  at  133  (BREYER, J.,  concurring  in  judgment);  Sosa, 
542 U. S., at 733, n. 21. 

Several  of  these  doctrines  might  be  implicated  in  this
case,  and  I  would  remand  for  the  Second  Circuit  to  ad­
dress them in the first instance.8  The majority, however, 

—————— 

8 For  instance,  the  alleged  conduct  might  not  sufficiently  touch  and
concern  the  United  States  to  displace  the  presumption  against  extra­
territoriality;  the  prohibition  on  terrorism  financing  might  not  be  a