Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-416_i4dj.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

respondents sought to apply the ATS extraterritorially be-
cause the only domestic conduct alleged was general corpo-
rate activity.  While this suit was on appeal, we held that 
courts  cannot  create  new  causes  of  action  against  foreign 
corporations under the ATS.  Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 584 
U. S. ___ (2018).  The Ninth Circuit then reversed the Dis-
trict Court in part.  Although the Ninth Circuit determined 
that Jesner compelled dismissal of all foreign corporate de-
fendants, it concluded that the opinion did not foreclose ju-
dicial creation of causes of action against domestic corpora-
tions.   The  Ninth  Circuit  also  held  that  respondents  had 
pleaded a domestic application of the ATS, as required by 
Kiobel, because the “financing decisions . . . originated” in 
the  United  States.  Doe  v.  Nestlé,  S. A.,  906  F. 3d  1120, 
1124–1126  (2018);  see  also  929  F. 3d  623  (2019).  We 
granted certiorari, 591 U. S. ___ (2020), and now reverse. 

II 

Petitioners and the United States argue that respondents 
improperly seek extraterritorial application of the ATS.  We 
agree. 

Our precedents “reflect a two-step framework for analyz-
ing extraterritoriality issues.”  RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. Euro-
pean Community, 579 U. S. 325, 337 (2016).  First, we pre-
sume that a statute applies only domestically, and we ask 
“whether the statute gives a clear, affirmative indication” 
that  rebuts  this  presumption.  Ibid.  For  the  ATS,  Kiobel 
answered that question in the negative.  569 U. S., at 124. 
Although we have interpreted its purely jurisdictional text 
to  implicitly  enable  courts  to  create  causes  of  action,  the 
ATS does not expressly “regulate conduct” at all, much less 
“evince  a  ‘clear  indication  of  extraterritoriality.’ ”  Id.,  at 
115–118.  Courts thus cannot give “extraterritorial reach” 
to any cause of action judicially created under the ATS.  Id., 
at  117–118.  Second, where  the statute,  as  here, does  not 
apply extraterritorially, plaintiffs must establish that “the