Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 138 S. Ct. 1386 (U.S. 2018)
Jesner v. Arab Bank is a landmark Supreme Court decision that reshaped the modern scope of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), a centuries-old jurisdictional statute often invoked to seek redress in U.S.
Does the Alien Tort Statute permit suits against foreign corporations for alleged violations of international law committed abroad or connected to the United States?
The Alien Tort Statute is jurisdictional and authorizes federal courts to recognize a narrow set of federal common-law causes of action for violations of specific, universal, and obligatory international norms, subject to substantial caution and separation-of-powers constraints (Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain). Courts must also heed the presumption against extraterritorial application (Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum). In Jesner, the Court held that, consistent with Sosa's directive of judicial restraint and given the foreign-relations and separation-of-powers concerns, the ATS does not allow suits against foreign corporate defendants. Any expansion of ATS liability to include foreign corporations is for Congress, not the courts.
Foreign corporations may not be defendants in lawsuits brought under the Alien Tort Statute.
Jesner narrows ATS litigation by foreclosing claims against foreign corporate defendants, significantly reducing the statute's reach against multinational companies headquartered abroad. For law students, Jesner completes a trilogy with Sosa and Kiobel that frames modern ATS practice: Sosa's strict gatekeeping for new causes of action, Kiobel's presumption against extraterritoriality, and Jesner's categorical bar on foreign corporate defendants. The decision channels many human-rights and terrorism-financing claims into congressionally created schemes like the ATA and TVPA or into foreign courts, and it leaves unresolved—and thus still litigated—the question whether domestic corporations may face ATS liability.