Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-416_i4dj.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

2 

NESTLE USA, INC. v. DOE 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

several  States”  over  “all  causes  where  an  alien  sues  for  a 
tort only in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the 
United States.”  §9, 1 Stat. 77.  The law has hardly changed
since and it remains similarly succinct:  “The district courts 
shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an al-
ien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of na-
tions or a treaty of the United States.”  28 U. S. C. §1350.

Nothing  in  the  ATS  supplies  corporations  with  special
protections against suit.  The statute specifies which plain-
tiffs  may  sue  (“alien[s]”).  It  speaks  of  the  sort  of  claims
those plaintiffs can bring (“tort[s]” in “violation of the law 
of nations or a treaty of the United States”).  But nowhere 
does it suggest that anything depends on whether the de-
fendant happens to be a person or a corporation. 

Understandably  too.  Causes  of  action  in  tort  normally
focus  on  wrongs  and  injuries,  not  who  is  responsible  for
them.  When  the  First  Congress  passed  the  ATS,  a  “tort”
meant simply an “injury or wrong” whoever committed it.
G. Jacob, O. Ruffhead, & J. Morgan, A Law Dictionary (10th
ed. 1773).  Nothing has changed in the intervening centu-
ries.  See, e.g., Black’s Law Dictionary 1717 (10th ed. 2014) 
(a tort is a “civil wrong . . . for which a remedy may be ob-
tained”).  Generally,  too,  the  law  places  corporations  and
individuals  on  equal  footing  when  it  comes  to  assigning 
rights and duties.  Even before the ATS’s adoption, Black-
stone explained that, “[a]fter a corporation is so formed and 
named, it acquires many powers, rights, capacities, and in-
capacities,” including “[t]o sue or be sued, implead or be im-
pleaded, grant or receive, by its corporate name, and do all 
other acts as natural persons may.”  1 W. Blackstone, Com-
mentaries on the Laws of England 463 (1765).

If more evidence were necessary to prove the point, plenty
would  seem  available.  Case  after  case  makes  plain  that,
“[a]t a very early period, it was decided in Great Britain, as
well as in the United States, that actions might be main-