Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-416_i4dj.pdf
Page Number: 34

2 

NESTLE USA, INC. v. DOE 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

must assume the answers to a host of important questions. 
Specifically,  the  Court  must  assume:  (1)  that,  contrary to 
the arguments set out in Part III of JUSTICE THOMAS’s opin-
ion and Part II of JUSTICE GORSUCH’s opinion, it is proper 
for us to recognize new claims that may be asserted under 
the ATS; (2) that the conduct petitioners are alleged to have 
aided and  abetted provides the basis for such a  claim; (3) 
that there is a “specific, universal, and obligatory” interna-
tional  law  norm,  Sosa  v.  Alvarez-Machain,  542  U. S.  692, 
732  (2004)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted),  that  im-
poses liability for what our legal system terms aiding and 
abetting; (4) that, if there is such a norm, we should choose 
to recognize an ATS aiding-and-abetting claim, see id.,  at 
725–728,  732,  733,  n.  21;  and  (5)  that  respondents’  com-
plaint adequately alleges all the elements of such a claim, 
including the requisite mens rea.  Compare Doe I v. Nestle 
USA, Inc., 788 F. 3d 946, 948–951 (CA9 2015) (Bea, J., dis-
senting  from  denial  of  reh’g  en  banc)  (aider  and  abettor 
must act purposefully); Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc., 658 F. 3d 388, 
398–401 (CA4 2011) (same); Presbyterian Church of Sudan 
v.  Talisman  Energy,  Inc.,  582  F.  3d  244,  257–259  (CA2 
2009) (same), with Doe VIII v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 654 F. 3d 
11,  32–39  (CADC  2011)  (aider  and  abettor  need  only  act 
knowingly),  vacated,  527  Fed.  Appx.  7  (CADC  2013);  Re-
statement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Economic Harm §28 
(2018)  (same);  Restatement  (Second)  of  Torts  §876  (1977) 
(same).  A decision begins to take on the flavor of an advi-
sory  opinion  when  it  is  necessary  to  make  so  many  im-
portant assumptions in order to reach the question that is 
actually resolved. 

To  be  sure,  Part  III  of  JUSTICE  THOMAS’s  opinion  and 
Part  II  of  JUSTICE  GORSUCH’s  opinion  make  strong  argu-
ments  that  federal  courts  should  never  recognize  new 
claims under the ATS.  But this issue was not raised by pe-
titioners’ counsel, and I would not reach it here. 

For these reasons, I would reject petitioners’ argument on