Opinion ID: 2745034
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Displacing the Presumption Against

Text: Extraterritoriality Under the ATS Drawing upon the guidance provided by the Supreme Court in Morrison and Kiobel, and by this Court in Balintulo, a clear principle emerges for conducting the extraterritoriality‐related jurisdictional analysis required by the ATS: that the “focus” of the ATS is on conduct and on the location of that conduct. Thus, in determining whether the ATS confers on a federal court jurisdiction over a particular case, a district court must isolate the “relevant conduct” in a complaint. That conduct is the conduct of the defendant which is alleged by plaintiff to be either a direct violation of the law of nations or, as we recognized in Presbyterian Church, 582 F.3d at 259, conduct that constitutes aiding and abetting another’s violation of the law of nations. In determining whether this conduct displaces the presumption, the district court must engage in a two‐ step jurisdictional analysis of this conduct. In Balintulo, we denied defendants’ request that we issue a writ of mandamus 12 ordering the District Court to dismiss all claims against them. We denied that request because we held that, in light of the Kiobel presumption, recognized by the Supreme Court while the Balintulo appeal was pending, “the defendants w[ould] be able to obtain their desired relief (dismissal of all claims) in the District Court through a motion for judgment on the pleadings, without resort to a writ of mandamus.” Balintulo, 727 F.3d at 182. As described above, our decision to deny the extraordinary writ of mandamus was based on the holding that the plaintiffs’ alleged “violations of customary international law based solely on conduct occurring abroad” were not cognizable in U.S. courts under the ATS. Id. 28 No. 10‐5258‐cv The first step is to determine whether the “relevant” conduct—conduct which constitutes a violation of the law of nations or aiding and abetting such a violation—sufficiently “touches and concerns” the territory of the United States so as to displace the presumption against extraterritoriality. Kiobel, 133 S. Ct. at 1669. The second step is to make a preliminary determination that the relevant conduct—which the court has determined sufficiently “touches and concerns” the United States so as to displace the presumption—may in fact be relied upon in establishing jurisdiction. This is done through a preliminary determination that the complaint adequately states a claim that the defendant violated the law of nations or aided and abetted another’s violation of the law of nations. As with all allegations contained in a complaint, the pleaded conduct must be “plausibl[e],” and allow the court “to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, and must—at least upon an initial examination by the district judge—appear to satisfy the standard for alleging a violation of the law of nations or aiding and abetting such a violation. This initial “glimpse” at what is ordinarily a merits determination is necessary due to the unique character of the ATS as a jurisdictional statute that derives substantive meaning from customary international law. Thus, jurisdiction can only properly be asserted over conduct that is in fact a violation of customary international law or aiding and abetting a violation. By “glimpsing” at the merits at the jurisdictional stage, the district court ensures that the conduct 29 No. 10‐5258‐cv alleged in a complaint may properly be relied upon by the court in conducting its extraterritoriality analysis. Where a complaint alleges domestic conduct of the defendant (that, the court determines, displaces the presumption against extraterritoriality), but such conduct does not satisfy even a preliminary assessment of the merits, the court may not rely on that conduct for its extraterritoriality analysis. In such a circumstance, the complaint does not only fail on the merits, but must also fail as a jurisdictional matter, because where the conduct alleged does not state a claim under customary international law, it cannot form the basis of a court’s jurisdiction. See Kadic, 70 F.3d at 238 (“Because the Alien Tort Act requires that plaintiffs plead ‘a violation of the law of nations’ at the jurisdictional threshold, this statute requires a more searching review of the merits to establish jurisdiction . . . . There is no federal subject‐matter jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Act unless the complaint adequately pleads a violation of the law of nations.”) (citing Filartiga, 630 F.2d at 887‐88). This second step of the extraterritoriality analysis ensures, as Justice Breyer stated in his Kiobel concurring opinion, that “the statuteʹs jurisdictional reach [will] match the statuteʹs underlying substantive grasp.” Kiobel, 133 S. Ct. at 1673 (Breyer, J., concurring in the judgment).13 We observe that Justice Breyer’s opinion explicitly regarded the extraterritoriality 13 analysis required by the majority opinion in Kiobel to be jurisdictional in nature, a conclusion that triggered no protest from the majority. Id. at 1673 (Breyer, J., concurring in the judgment). This approach is consistent with our understanding of the ATS as a “strictly jurisdictional” creature. Sosa, 542 U.S. at 713. Accordingly, the general presumption that a limitation on a statute’s coverage will be treated as nonjurisdictional 30 No. 10‐5258‐cv Finally, we note that although a district court might deny a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) if it concludes that the complaint passes jurisdictional muster, that does not obviate the district court’s continuing obligation to ensure its own jurisdiction as the case proceeds to discovery. If subsequent materials in the record cast sufficient doubt upon the allegations in the complaint that formed the basis for the court’s subject‐matter jurisdiction, the court must revisit the question of its jurisdiction sua sponte, or upon a party’s motion. See, e.g., Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004) (“[I]t is the obligation of both district court and counsel to be alert to jurisdictional requirements.”); Transatlantic Marine Claims Agency, Inc. v. Ace Shipping Corp., Div. of Ace Young Inc., 109 F.3d 105, 107 (2d Cir. 1997) (“The failure of the parties to contest the district court’s authority to hear a case does not act to confer federal jurisdiction since a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised either by motion or sua sponte at any time.”) (internal quotation marks, ellipses, and brackets omitted).