Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. :: 569 U.S.

108 (2013) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center 19/01/2019, 12(31 PM

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569

Syllabus Opinion (Roberts) Concurrence (Alito) Concurrence (Kennedy)

Concurrence (Breyer)

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

KIOBEL, individually and on behalf of her late husband KIOBEL, et al. v. ROYAL DUTCH
PETROLEUM CO. et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit

No. 10–1491. Argued February 28, 2012—Reargued October 1, 2012—Decided April 17, 2013

Petitioners, Nigerian nationals residing in the United States, filed suit in federal court under the
Alien Tort Statute, alleging that respondents—certain Dutch, British, and Nigerian corporations—
aided and abetted the Nigerian Government in committing violations of the law 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 the

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/569/108/ Page 1 of 4
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. :: 569 U.S. 108 (2013) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center 19/01/2019, 12(31 PM

United States.” 28 U. S. C. §1350. The District Court dismissed several of petitioners’ claims, but on
interlocutory appeal, the Second Circuit dismissed the entire complaint, reasoning that the law of
nations does not recognize corporate liability. This Court granted certiorari, and ordered
supplemental briefing on whether and under what circumstances courts may recognize a cause of
action under the ATS, for violations of the law of nations occurring within the territory of a
sovereign other than the United States.

Held: The presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the ATS, and nothing in
the statute rebuts that presumption. Pp. 3–14.

(a) Passed as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the ATS is a jurisdictional statute that creates no
causes of action. It permits federal courts to “recognize private claims [for a modest number of
international law violations] under federal common law.” Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U. S. 692 .
In contending that a claim under the ATS does not reach conduct occurring in a foreign sovereign’s
territory, respondents rely on the presumption against extraterritorial application, which provides
that “[w]hen a statute gives no clear indication of an extraterritorial application, it has none,”
Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U. S. ___, ___. The presumption “serves to protect
against unintended clashes between our laws and those of other nations which could result in
international discord.” EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U. S. 244 . It is typically applied to
discern whether an Act of Congress regulating conduct applies abroad, see, e.g., id., at 246, but its
underlying principles similarly constrain courts when considering causes of action that may be
brought under the ATS. Indeed, the danger of unwarranted judicial interference in the conduct of
foreign policy is magnified in this context, where the question is not what Congress has done but
what courts may do. These foreign policy concerns are not diminished by the fact that Sosa limited
federal courts to recognizing causes of action only for alleged violations of international law norms
that are “ ‘specific, universal, and obligatory,” 542 U. S., at 732. Pp. 3–6.

(b) The presumption is not rebutted by the text, history, or purposes of the ATS. Nothing in the
ATS’s text evinces a clear indication of extraterritorial reach. Violations of the law of nations
affecting aliens can occur either within or outside the United States. And generic terms, like “any”
in the phrase “any civil action,” do not rebut the presumption against extraterritoriality. See, e.g.,
Morrison, supra, at ___. Petitioners also rely on the common-law “transitory torts” doctrine, but
that doctrine is inapposite here; as the Court has explained, “the only justification for allowing a
party to recover when the cause of action arose in another civilized jurisdiction is a well-founded
belief that it was a cause of action in that place,” Cuba R. Co. v. Crosby, 222 U. S. 473 . The question
under Sosa is not whether a federal court has jurisdiction to entertain a cause of action provided by
foreign or even international law. The question is instead whether the court has authority to
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/569/108/ Page 2 of 4
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. :: 569 U.S. 108 (2013) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center 19/01/2019, 12(31 PM

foreign or even international law. The question is instead whether the court has authority to
recognize a cause of action under U. S. law to enforce a norm of international law. That question is
not answered by the mere fact that the ATS mentions torts.

The historical background against which the ATS was enacted also does not overcome the
presumption. When the ATS was passed, “three principal offenses against the law of nations” had
been identified by Blackstone: violation of safe conducts, infringement of the rights of
ambassadors, and piracy. Sosa, supra, at 723, 724. Prominent contemporary examples of the first
two offenses—immediately before and after passage of the ATS—provide no support for the
proposition that Congress expected causes of action to be brought under the statute for violations
of the law of nations occurring abroad. And although the offense of piracy normally occurs on the
high seas, beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the United States or any other country, applying
U. S. law to pirates does not typically impose the sovereign will of the United States onto conduct
occurring within the territorial jurisdiction of another sovereign, and therefore carries less direct
foreign policy consequences. A 1795 opinion of Attorney General William Bradford regarding the
conduct of U. S. citizens on both the high seas and a foreign shore is at best ambiguous about the
ATS’s extraterritorial application; it does not suffice to counter the weighty concerns underlying
the presumption against extraterritoriality. Finally, there is no indication that the ATS was passed
to make the United States a uniquely hospitable forum for the enforcement of international norms.
Pp. 6–14.

621 F. 3d 111, affirmed.

Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito,
JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion. Alito, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which
Thomas, J., joined. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Ginsburg,
Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined.

Oral Argument - February 28, 2012

Opinion Announcement - April 17, 2013

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports.
Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/569/108/ Page 3 of 4
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. :: 569 U.S. 108 (2013) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center 19/01/2019, 12(31 PM

developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness,
or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official
sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our
site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of
law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any
attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/569/108/ Page 4 of 4