Opinion ID: 2745034
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pleading a Violation of the Law of Nations

Text: The first jurisdictional inquiry that we undertake is determining whether plaintiffs have adequately pleaded a cause of action. The ATS only confers jurisdiction over torts based upon violations of United States treaties or of the law of nations. 28 U.S.C. § 1350. As Judge Jon O. Newman has explained, “[b]ecause the [ATS] requires that plaintiffs plead a violation of the law of nations We note that the District Court dismissed all of plaintiffs’ ATS claims from the 5 bench “because of the decision of the Second Circuit in Kiobel,” App’x 58, referring to our Kiobel opinion, in which we held that “[b]ecause corporate liability is not recognized as a specific, universal, and obligatory norm . . . it is not a rule of customary international law that we may apply under the ATS.” 621 F.3d at 145 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although the holding of our Kiobel opinion has not been modified or disturbed, see Chowdhury v. Worldtel Bangladesh Holding, Ltd., 746 F.3d 42, 49 n.6 (2d Cir. 2014); Balintulo v. Daimler AG, 727 F.3d 174, 191 n.26 (2d Cir. 2013), plaintiffs argue in their supplemental brief that we should reevaluate the holding of our Kiobel opinion. See Appellants’ Ltr. Br. 2‐3. As it happens, we have no need to address that argument because we dispose of plaintiffs’ claims on other jurisdictional grounds. 16 No. 10‐5258‐cv at the jurisdictional threshold, this statute requires a more searching review of the merits to establish jurisdiction than is required under the more flexible ‘arising under’ formula of [28 U.S.C.] section 1331.” Kadic, 70 F.3d at 238 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Thus, it is not a sufficient basis for jurisdiction to plead merely a colorable violation of the law of nations. There is no federal subject‐matter jurisdiction under the [ATS] unless the complaint adequately pleads a violation of the law of nations (or treaty of the United States).” Id. Plaintiffs’ complaint asserts seven causes of action predicated upon the following alleged violations by the Saddam Hussein regime: (1) crimes against humanity; (2) war crimes; (3) genocide; (4) torture; (5) extrajudicial killings; (6) forced disappearances of persons; and (7) cruel, inhuman, and/or degrading treatment and/or punishment. See App’x 34‐43. All of these claims, plaintiffs argue, are cognizable under the ATS as torts committed in violation of the law of nations or of United States treaties. See id. at 28‐29 ¶ 158. Violations of the law of nations, also known as customary international law, 6 are those “violations of . . . international law norm[s] with [as] definite content and acceptance among civilized nations [as] the historical paradigms familiar when [the ATS] was enacted [in 1789],” Sosa, 542 U.S. at 732, or, in other words, are violations of “specific and universally accepted rules that the nations of the world treat as binding in their dealings with one another,” Kiobel, 621 F.3d at 118. We do well to recall that customary international law, as Judge Friendly explained, addresses only those 6 See note 2, ante. 17 No. 10‐5258‐cv wrongs proscribed by “standards, rules or customs (a) affecting the relationship between states or between an individual and a foreign state, and (b) used by those states for their common good and/or in dealings inter se.” IIT v. Vencap, Ltd., 519 F.2d at 1015; see also Flores, 414 F.3d at 249; n.23, post, and accompanying text. By way of example, Judge Friendly rejected the notion that “the Eighth Commandment ‘Thou shalt not steal’ is part of the law of nations,” because, “[w]hile every civilized nation doubtless has this as a part of its legal system,” that is insufficient to establish it as a norm of the law of nations; rather, it must affect the relationship between states or between an individual and a foreign state, and must relate to the practice of states in their relationships inter se. Vencap, 519 F.2d at 1015; see also Flores, 414 F.3d at 249 (“[F]or example, murder of one private party by another, universally proscribed by the domestic law of all countries (subject to varying definitions), is not actionable under the AT[S] as a violation of customary international law because the nations of the world have not demonstrated that this wrong is of mutual, and not merely several, concern.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We conclude that plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of asserting some causes of action grounded in actions recognized as violations of customary international law. See, e.g., Presbyterian Church, 582 F.3d at 256 (acknowledging that genocide, war crimes, 18 No. 10‐5258‐cv and crimes against humanity may be asserted as causes of action under the ATS).7