Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 84.0

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

27 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

tion, however, this Court did not reject petitioners’ account 
of  the  TVPA’s  legislative  history  in  Mohamad.  In  fact, 
that decision agreed that the legislative history “clarifi[es] 
that  the  Act  does  not  encompass  liability  against  foreign
states.”  566  U. S.,  at  459.    What  Mohamad  rejected  was
the  argument  that  because  the  TVPA  forecloses  liability 
against  foreign  states,  it  necessarily  permits  liability 
against  corporations. 
In  concluding  that  the  TVPA 
encompasses  only  natural  persons,  Mohamad  took  no 
position on why Congress excluded organizations from its 
reach.11 

To  infer  from  the  TVPA  that  no  corporation  may  ever
be  held  liable  under  the  ATS  for  any  violation  of  any 
international-law  norm,  moreover,  ignores  that  Congress 
has elsewhere imposed liability on corporations for conduct 
prohibited  by  customary  international  law.    For  instance, 
the  Antiterrorism  Act  of  1990  (ATA)  created  a  civil  cause 
of  action  for  U. S.  nationals  injured  by  an  act  of  interna­
tional  terrorism  and  expressly  provides  for  corporate 
liability.   18  U. S. C.  §2333.    That  Congress  foreclosed 
corporate  liability  for  torture  and  extrajudicial  killing 
claims  under  the  TVPA  but  permitted  corporate  liability
for  terrorism-related  claims  under  the  ATA  is  strong
evidence  that  Congress  exercises  its  judgment  as  to  the
appropriateness  of  corporate  liability  on  a  norm-by-norm 
basis, and that courts should do the same when consider­
ing  whether  to  permit  causes  of  action  against  corpora­

—————— 

been in conflict with the FSIA. 

11 Petitioners  may  be  right  that  Congress  limited  liability  under  the 
TVPA to natural persons to harmonize the statute with the FSIA.  That 
Congress  thought  it  necessary  to  achieve  that  goal  by  foreclosing
liability against all organizational defendants, not just those operating
under  the  authority  of  a  foreign  government,  might  indicate  that
Congress  thought  such  line  drawing  would  be  difficult,  or  that  an
expansive approach was the cleanest way to avoid the statute becoming
a backdoor to suits against foreign governments.