Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-416_i4dj.pdf
Page Number: 29.0

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

9 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring
Opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J. 

should respond with the doctrine that speaks directly to the 
friction’s source.”  Jesner, 584 U. S., at ___ (SOTOMAYOR, J., 
dissenting) (slip op., at 22).  Such tools include the presump-
tion against extraterritoriality, limits on personal jurisdic-
tion,  case-by-case  deference  to  the  political  branches,  and 
the doctrines of exhaustion, forum non conveniens, and in-
ternational  comity.   See  ibid.;  Kiobel,  569  U. S.,  at  133 
(BREYER, J.,  concurring  in  judgment);  Sosa,  542  U. S.,  at 
733,  n. 21.    Ignoring  all  these  options,  JUSTICE  THOMAS 
would instead bar any ATS suit that seeks to hold a defend-
ant liable for violating any international norm that devel-
oped after the 18th century.  That is a gross overreaction to 
a manageable (and largely hypothetical) problem. 

Moreover,  in  arguing  that  ATS  litigation  “ ‘inherent[ly]’ 
raises ‘foreign-policy concerns,’ ” ante, at 9 (quoting Jesner, 
584 U. S., at ___ (majority opinion) (slip op., at 19)), JUSTICE 
THOMAS ignores the other side of the equation: that foreign 
nations may take (and, indeed, historically have taken) um-
brage  at  the  United  States’  refusal  to  provide  redress  to 
their citizens for international law torts committed by U. S. 
nationals  within  the  United  States.  See  supra,  at  4,  and 
n. 2.  Closing the courthouse doors thus “gives rise to foreign-
policy concerns” just as “invariably,” ante, at 9, as leaving 
them open. 

Second,  JUSTICE  THOMAS  suggests  that  federal  courts 
lack “the ‘institutional capacity’ to consider all factors rele-
vant” to recognizing actionable torts under the ATS.  Ante, 
at  10;  see  also  post,  at  5–6  (opinion  of  GORSUCH,  J.).  It 
would be surprising (and, I suspect, distressing) to the Con-
gress that enacted the ATS to learn that federal courts lack 
institutional  capacity  to  do  the  very  thing  the  ATS  pre-
sumes  they  will  do.  JUSTICE  THOMAS’  pessimism  aside, 
there is no reason to doubt federal courts’ ability to identify 
those norms of international law that are sufficiently “ ‘spe-
cific,  universal,  and  obligatory’ ”  to  give  rise  to  a  cause  of 
action under the ATS.  Jesner, 584 U. S., at ___ (plurality