Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 59

2 

JESNER v. ARAB BANK, PLC 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

law, ante, at 13, the plurality fundamentally misconceives
how  international  law  works  and  so  misapplies  the  first 
step of Sosa. 

A 
In Sosa, the Court considered whether a Mexican citizen 

could  recover  under  the  ATS  for  a  claim  of  arbitrary  de­
tention by a Mexican national who had been hired by the 
Drug  Enforcement  Administration  to  seize  and  transport
him to the United States.  See 542 U. S., at 697–698.  The 
Court  held that  the  ATS  permits  federal  courts  to  “recog­
nize private causes of action for certain torts in violation of 
the  law  of  nations,”  id.,  at  724,  without  the  need  for  any 
“further congressional action,” id., at 712.  The Court then 
articulated  a  two-step  framework  to  guide  that  inquiry.
First,  a  court  must  determine  whether  the  particular
international-law  norm  alleged  to  have  been  violated  is
“accepted  by  the  civilized  world  and  defined  with  a  speci­
ficity comparable to the features of the 18th-century para­
digms,” i.e., “violation of safe conducts, infringement of the 
rights of ambassadors, and piracy.”  Id., at 724–725.  Only 
if  the  norm  is  “ ‘specific,  universal,  and  obligatory’ ”  may 
federal courts recognize a cause of action for its violation. 
Kiobel  v.  Royal  Dutch  Petroleum  Co.,  569  U. S.  108,  117 
(2013)  (quoting  Sosa,  542  U. S.,  at  732).    Second,  if  that 
threshold  hurdle  is  satisfied,  a  court  should  consider 
whether allowing a particular case to proceed is an appro­
priate  exercise  of  judicial  discretion.  Sosa,  542  U. S.,  at 
727–728,  732–733,  738.    Applying  that  framework,  Sosa 
held  that  the  alleged  arbitrary  detention  claim  at  issue 
failed at step one because “a single illegal detention of less
than  a  day,  followed  by  the  transfer  of  custody  to  lawful
authorities and a prompt arraignment, violates no norm of 
customary international law so well defined as to support 
the creation of a federal remedy.”  Id., at 738. 

Sosa’s  norm-specific  first  step  is  inapposite  to  the  cate­