Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-416_i4dj.pdf
Page Number: 7

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

5 

Opinion of the Court
Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

Coast.  The Ninth Circuit nonetheless let this suit proceed 
because  respondents  pleaded  as  a  general  matter  that 
“every  major  operational  decision  by  both  companies  is 
made in or approved in the U. S.”  App. 314.  But allegations 
of general corporate activity—like decisionmaking—cannot 
alone establish domestic application of the ATS. 

As we made clear in Kiobel, a plaintiff does not plead facts 
sufficient to support domestic application of the ATS simply 
by alleging “mere corporate presence” of a defendant.  569 
U. S., at 125.  Pleading general corporate activity is no bet-
ter.  Because making “operational decisions” is an activity 
common  to  most  corporations,  generic  allegations  of  this 
sort do not draw a sufficient connection between the cause 
of action respondents seek—aiding and abetting forced la-
bor  overseas—and  domestic  conduct.   “[T]he  presumption 
against  extraterritorial  application  would  be  a  craven 
watchdog indeed if it retreated to its kennel whenever some 
domestic activity is involved in the case.”  Morrison v. Na-
tional Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U. S. 247, 266 (2010).  To 
plead  facts  sufficient  to  support  a  domestic  application  of 
the ATS, plaintiffs must allege more domestic conduct than 
general corporate activity.  The Ninth Circuit erred when it 
held otherwise. 

III 

Respondents’  suit  fails  for  another  reason,  which  does 
not  require  parsing  allegations  about  where  conduct  oc-
curred:  We cannot create  a cause  of  action that  would  let 
them sue petitioners.  That job belongs to Congress, not the 
Federal Judiciary.  Sosa indicated that courts may exercise 
common-law  authority  under  the  ATS  to  create  private 
rights of action in very limited circumstances.  542 U. S., at 
724.  Sosa suggested, for example, that courts could recog-
nize causes of action for three historical violations of inter-
national  law:  “violation  of  safe  conducts,  infringement  of