Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 43

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

7 

Opinion of ALITO, J. 

foreign  corporations  to  account  for  certain  egregious  con-
duct,”  ibid.).  That  is  their  prerogative  as  the  political 
branches.  But  consistent  with  the  separation  of  powers,
we  have  neither  the  luxury  nor  the  right  to  make  such
policy decisions ourselves.

Creating causes of action under the ATS against foreign
corporate  defendants  would  be  a  no-win  proposition.
Foreign corporate liability would not only fail to meaning-
fully  advance  the  objectives  of  the  ATS,  but  it  would  also
lead  to  precisely  those  “serious  consequences  in  interna-
tional  affairs”  that  the  ATS  was  enacted  to  avoid.    Sosa, 
542  U. S.,  at  715.    Under  those  circumstances,  federal 
courts  have  a  duty  to  refrain  from  acting.    Although  that
may make it more difficult for aliens to hold foreign corpo-
rations liable for human rights abuses, we have repeatedly 
rejected  the  view  that  the  ATS  was  meant  to  transform
the  federal  courts  into  forums  for  the  litigation  of  all  hu-
man rights suits.  See ante, at 8–9, 25–27 (majority opin-
ion);  Kiobel,  569  U. S.,  at  123–124;  Sosa,  supra,  at  715– 
718.  Declining  to  extend  the  ATS  to  foreign  corporate
defendants  is  thus  not  about  “[i]mmunizing  corporations
that  violate  human  rights,”  post,  at  34,  but  rather  about 
furthering  the  purpose  that  the  ATS  was  actually  meant
to serve—avoiding diplomatic strife.