Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Syllabus
Syllabus
KIOBEL,INDIVIDUALLYANDONBEHALFOFHERLATE
HUSBANDKIOBEL,ETAL
.v.ROYALDUTCH
PETROLEUMCO.ETAL .
CERTIORARITOTHEUNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALSFOR
THESECONDCIRCUIT
No.101491. ArguedFebruary28,2012RearguedOctober1,2012
DecidedApril17,2013
Petitioners,NigeriannationalsresidingintheUnitedStates,filedsuit
infederalcourtundertheAlienTortStatute,allegingthatrespond-
entscertain Dutch, British, and Nigerian corporationsaided and
abettedtheNigerianGovernmentincommittingviolationsofthelaw
of nations in Nigeria. The ATS provides that [t]he district courts
shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a
tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of
theUnitedStates. 28U.S.C.1350.TheDistrictCourtdismissed
severalofpetitionersclaims,butoninterlocutoryappeal,theSecond
Circuitdismissedtheentirecomplaint,reasoningthatthelawofna-
tionsdoesnotrecognizecorporateliability.ThisCourtgrantedcerti-
orari,andorderedsupplementalbriefingonwhetherandunderwhat
circumstancescourtsmayrecognizeacauseofactionundertheATS,
forviolationsofthelawofnationsoccurringwithintheterritoryofa
sovereignotherthantheUnitedStates.
Held:Thepresumptionagainstextraterritorialityappliestoclaimsun-
der the ATS, and nothing in the statute rebuts that presumption.
Pp.314.
(a)PassedaspartoftheJudiciaryActof1789,theATSisajuris-
dictionalstatutethatcreatesnocausesofaction.Itpermitsfederal
courts to recognize private claims [for a modest number of interna-
tional law violations] under federal common law. Sosa v. Alvarez-
Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 732. In contending that a claim under the
ATSdoesnotreachconductoccurringinaforeignsovereignsterrito-
2 KIOBELv.ROYALDUTCHPETROLEUMCO.
Syllabus
Citeas: 569U.S.____(2013) 3
Syllabus
ROBERTS,C.J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA,
KENNEDY,T HOMAS,andA
LITO,JJ.,joined. KENNEDY,J.,filedaconcur-
ringopinion. ALITO,J.,filedaconcurringopinion,inwhichT
HOMAS,J.,
joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in
whichGINSBURG,S OTOMAYOR,andKAGAN,JJ.,joined.
Citeas: 569U.S.____(2013) 1
OpinionoftheCourt
NOTICE: Thisopinionissubjecttoformalrevisionbeforepublicationinthe
preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to
notifytheReporterofDecisions,SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates,Wash-
ington, D.C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order
thatcorrectionsmaybemadebeforethepreliminaryprintgoestopress.
No.101491
_________________
ESTHERKIOBEL,INDIVIDUALLYANDONBEHALFOFHER
.,PETI-
LATEHUSBAND,DR.BARINEMKIOBEL,ETAL
TIONERSv.ROYALDUTCHPETROLEUMCO.ETAL .
ONWRITOFCERTIORARITOTHEUNITEDSTATESCOURTOF
APPEALSFORTHESECONDCIRCUIT
[April17,2013]
factsallegedtosupportthoseclaimsdidnotgiverisetoa
violationofthelawofnations.Thecourtdeniedrespond-
ents motion to dismiss with respect to the remaining
claims, but certified its order for interlocutory appeal
pursuantto1292(b).
TheSecondCircuitdismissedtheentirecomplaint,rea-
soning that the law of nations does not recognize corpo-
rateliability.621F.3d111(2010).Wegrantedcertiorari
toconsiderthatquestion.565U.S.___(2011).Afteroral
argument, we directed the parties to file supplemen-
tal briefs addressing an additional question: Whether
and under what circumstances the [ATS] allows courts
to recognize a cause of action for violations of the law of
nationsoccurringwithintheterritoryofasovereignother
thantheUnitedStates.565U.S.___(2012).Weheard
oralargumentagainandnowaffirmthejudgmentbelow,
basedonouranswertothesecondquestion.
II
PassedaspartoftheJudiciaryActof1789,theATSwas
invokedtwiceinthelate18thcentury,butthenonlyonce
moreoverthenext167years. ActofSept.24,1789,9,1
Stat 77; see Moxon v. The Fanny, 17 F.Cas. 942 (No.
9,895)(DCPa.1793);Bolchos v.Darrel,3F.Cas.810(No.
1,607) (DC SC 1795); OReilly de Camara v. Brooke, 209
U.S. 45 (1908); Khedivial Line, S.A.E. v. Seafarers Intl
Union,278F.2d49,5152(CA21960)(per curiam). The
statute provides district courts with jurisdiction to hear
certain claims, but does not expressly provide any causes
ofaction. WeheldinSosav.Alvarez-Machain,542U.S.
692,714(2004),however,thattheFirstCongressdidnot
intend the provision to be stillborn. The grant of juris-
dictionisinsteadbestreadashavingbeenenactedonthe
understanding that the common law would provide a
causeofactionfor[a]modestnumberofinternationallaw
violations. Id.,at724. Wethusheldthatfederalcourts
4 KIOBELv.ROYALDUTCHPETROLEUMCO.
OpinionoftheCourt
aninterpretationofU.S.lawthatcarriesforeignpol-
icy consequences not clearly intended by the political
branches.
We typically apply the presumption to discern whether
an Act of Congress regulating conduct applies abroad.
See,e.g., Aramco,supra,at246(Thesecasespresentthe
issue whether Title VII applies extraterritorially to regu-
latetheemploymentpracticesofUnitedStatesemployers
who employ United States citizens abroad); Morrison,
supra, at ___ (slip op., at 4) (noting that the question of
extraterritorialapplicationwasameritsquestion,nota
question of jurisdiction). The ATS, on the other hand, is
strictly jurisdictional. Sosa, 542 U.S., at 713. It does
not directly regulate conduct or afford relief. It instead
allows federal courts to recognize certain causes of action
based on sufficiently definite norms of international law.
Butwethinktheprinciplesunderlyingthecanonofinter-
pretation similarly constrain courts considering causes of
actionthatmaybebroughtundertheATS.
Indeed,thedangerofunwarrantedjudicialinterference
intheconductofforeignpolicyismagnifiedinthecontext
oftheATS,becausethequestionisnotwhatCongresshas
donebutinsteadwhatcourtsmaydo.ThisCourtinSosa
repeatedlystressedtheneedforjudicialcautioninconsid-
ering which claims could be brought under the ATS, in
light of foreign policy concerns. As the Court explained,
the potential [foreign policy] implications... of recog-
nizing .... causes [under the ATS] should make courts
particularly wary of impinging on the discretion of the
Legislative and Executive Branches in managing foreign
affairs. Id.,at727;seealsoid.,at727728(Sincemany
attemptsbyfederalcourtstocraftremediesfortheviola-
tionofnewnormsofinternationallawwouldraiserisksof
adverseforeignpolicyconsequences,theyshouldbeunder-
taken, if at all, with great caution); id., at 727 ([T]he
6 KIOBELv.ROYALDUTCHPETROLEUMCO.
OpinionoftheCourt
8 KIOBELv.ROYALDUTCHPETROLEUMCO.
OpinionoftheCourt
10 KIOBELv.ROYALDUTCHPETROLEUMCO.
OpinionoftheCourt
12 KIOBELv.ROYALDUTCHPETROLEUMCO.
OpinionoftheCourt
14 KIOBELv.ROYALDUTCHPETROLEUMCO.
OpinionoftheCourt
Morrison,561U.S.,at___(slipop.,at16),andpetitioners
case seeking relief for violations of the law of nations
occurringoutsidetheUnitedStatesisbarred.
IV
On these facts, all the relevant conduct took place out-
sidetheUnitedStates. Andevenwheretheclaimstouch
andconcerntheterritoryoftheUnitedStates,theymust
do so with sufficient force to displace the presumption
against extraterritorial application. See Morrison, 561
U.S.___(slipop.at1724).Corporationsareoftenpresent
in many countries, and it would reach too far to say that
mere corporate presence suffices. If Congress were to
determineotherwise,astatutemorespecificthantheATS
wouldberequired.
ThejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsisaffirmed.
It is so ordered.
Citeas: 569U.S.____(2013) 1
KENNEDY,J.,concurring
No.101491
_________________
ESTHERKIOBEL,INDIVIDUALLYANDONBEHALFOFHER
.,PETI-
LATEHUSBAND,DR.BARINEMKIOBEL,ETAL
TIONERSv.ROYALDUTCHPETROLEUMCO.ETAL .
ONWRITOFCERTIORARITOTHEUNITEDSTATESCOURTOF
APPEALSFORTHESECONDCIRCUIT
[April17,2013]
JUSTICEKENNEDY,concurring.
The opinion for the Court is careful to leave open a
number of significant questions regarding the reach and
interpretationoftheAlienTortStatute.Inmyviewthat
is a proper disposition. Many serious concerns with re-
specttohumanrightsabusescommittedabroadhavebeen
addressed by Congress in statutes such as the Torture
Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA), 106 Stat. 73, note
following28U.S.C.1350,andthatclassofcaseswillbe
determined in the future according to the detailed statu-
toryschemeCongresshasenacted.Othercasesmayarise
with allegations of serious violations of international law
principlesprotectingpersons,casescoveredneitherbythe
TVPA nor by the reasoning and holding of todays case;
andinthosedisputestheproperimplementationofthepre-
sumption against extraterritorial application may require
somefurtherelaborationandexplanation.
Citeas: 569U.S.____(2013) 1
ALITO,J.,concurring
No.101491
_________________
ESTHERKIOBEL,INDIVIDUALLYANDONBEHALFOFHER
.,PETI-
LATEHUSBAND,DR.BARINEMKIOBEL,ETAL
TIONERSv.ROYALDUTCHPETROLEUMCO.ETAL .
ONWRITOFCERTIORARITOTHEUNITEDSTATESCOURTOF
APPEALSFORTHESECONDCIRCUIT
[April17,2013]
No.101491
_________________
ESTHERKIOBEL,INDIVIDUALLYANDONBEHALFOFHER
.,PETI-
LATEHUSBAND,DR.BARINEMKIOBEL,ETAL
TIONERSv.ROYALDUTCHPETROLEUMCO.ETAL .
ONWRITOFCERTIORARITOTHEUNITEDSTATESCOURTOF
APPEALSFORTHESECONDCIRCUIT
[April17,2013]
shouldgiveseriousweighttotheExecutiveBranchsview
ofthecasesimpactonforeignpolicy. Ibid.Adjudicating
any such claim must, in my view, also be consistent with
thosenotionsofcomitythatleadeachnationtorespectthe
sovereign rights of other nations by limiting the reach of
itsownlawsandtheirenforcement. Id.,at761(BREYER,
J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). See
also F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v. Empagran S. A., 542
U.S.155,165169(2004).
Recognizing that Congress enacted the ATS to permit
recoveryofdamagesfrompiratesandotherswhoviolated
basicinternationallawnormsasunderstoodin1789,Sosa
essentially leads todays judges to ask: Who are todays
pirates? See542U.S.,at724725(majorityopinion).We
provided a framework for answering that question by
setting down principles drawn from international norms
anddesignedtolimitATSclaimstothosethataresimilar
incharacterandspecificitytopiracy.Id.,at725.
In this case we must decide the extent to which this
jurisdictionalstatuteopensafederalcourtsdoorstothose
harmed by activities belonging to the limited class that
Sosasetforth when those activities take place abroad. To
helpanswerthisquestionhere,IwouldreferbothtoSosa
and,asinSosa,tonormsofinternationallaw.SeePartII,
infra.
B
Inmyviewthemajoritysefforttoanswerthequestion
byreferringtothepresumptionagainstextraterritoriality
does not work well. That presumption rests on the per-
ception that Congress ordinarily legislates with respect
to domestic, not foreign matters. Morrison v. National
Australia Bank Ltd.,561U.S.___,___(2010)(slipop.,at
56). Seeante,at4. TheATS,however,wasenactedwith
foreignmattersinmind. Thestatutestextrefersexplic-
itlytoalien[s],treat[ies],andthelawofnations.28
4 KIOBELv.ROYALDUTCHPETROLEUMCO.
BREYER,J.,concurringinjudgment
nationsoccurringwithintheterritoryofasovereignother
than the United States. 565 U.S. ___ (2012). The ma-
jority echoes in this jurisdictional context Sosas warning
to use caution in shaping federal common-law causes of
action. Ante,at5. Butitalsomakesclearthatastatutory
claimmightsometimestouchandconcerntheterritoryof
theUnitedStates...withsufficientforcetodisplacethe
presumption. Ante, at 14. It leaves for another day the
determination of just when the presumption against ex-
traterritorialitymightbeovercome.Ante,at8.
II
InapplyingtheATStoactsoccurringwithintheterri-
toryofa[nother]sovereign,IwouldassumethatCongress
intended the statutes jurisdictional reach to match the
statutes underlying substantive grasp. That grasp, de-
finedbythestatutespurposessetforthinSosa,includes
compensation for those injured by piracy and its modern-
day equivalents, at least where allowing such compensa-
tionavoidsseriousnegativeinternationalconsequences
for the United States. 542 U. S., at 715. And just as
we have looked to established international substantive
norms to help determine the statutes substantive reach,
id.,at729, soweshouldlooktointernationaljurisdictional
norms to help determine the statutes jurisdictional
scope.
The Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law is
helpful. Section402recognizesthat,subjectto403srea-
sonableness requirement, a nation may apply its law
(for example, federal common law, see 542 U.S., at 729
730)notonly(1)toconductthattakesplace[ortoper-
sons or things] within its territory but also (2) to the
activities, interests, status, or relations of its nationals
outside as well as within its territory, (3) to conduct
outside its territory that has or is intended to have sub-
stantial effect within its territory, and (4) to certain
Citeas: 569U.S.____(2013) 7
BREYER,J.,concurringinjudgment
toenhancetheremedyalreadyavailableundertheATS).
But cf. Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, 566 U.S. ___
(2012)(TVPAallowssuitsagainstonlynaturalpersons).
Congress, while aware of the award of civil damages
under the ATSincluding cases such as Filartiga with
foreign plaintiffs, defendants, and conducthas not
sought to limit the statutes jurisdictional or substantive
reach. Rather, Congress has enacted other statutes, and
notonlycriminalstatutes,thatallowtheUnitedStatesto
prosecute (or allow victims to obtain damages from) for-
eign persons who injure foreign victims by committing
abroadtorture,genocide,andotherheinousacts.See,e.g.,
18 U. S. C. 2340A(b)(2) (authorizing prosecution of tor-
turers if the alleged offender is present in the United
States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or
alleged offender); 1091(e)(2)(D) (2006 ed., Supp. V)
(genocide prosecution authorized when, regardless of
wheretheoffenseiscommitted,theallegedoffenderis...
present in the United States); note following 28 U.S.C.
1350,2(a)(privaterightofactiononbehalfofindividu-
als harmed by an act of torture or extrajudicial killing
committedunderactualorapparentauthority,orcolorof
law,ofanyforeignnation).SeealsoS.Rep.No.102249,
supra,at34(purposetomak[e]surethattorturersand
death squads will no longer have a safe haven in the
United States, by providing a civil cause of action in
U.S.courtsfortorturecommittedabroad).
Thus, the jurisdictional approach that I would use is
analogous to, and consistent with, the approaches of a
number of other nations. It is consistent with the ap-
proachessetforthintheRestatement. Itsinsistenceupon
the presence of some distinct American interest, its reli-
ance upon courts also invoking other related doctrines
such as comity, exhaustion, and forum non conveniens,
alongwithitsdependence(foritsworkability)uponcourts
obtaining,andpayingparticularattentionto,theviewsof
14 KIOBELv.ROYALDUTCHPETROLEUMCO.
BREYER,J.,concurringinjudgment
cateadistinctAmericaninterest,suchasinnotproviding
asafeharborforanenemyofallmankind.ThusIagree
with the Court that here it would reach too far to say
thatsuchmerecorporatepresencesuffices.Ante,at14.
I consequently join the Courts judgment but not its
opinion.