Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013)
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
Does the Alien Tort Statute allow federal courts to recognize and adjudicate claims for violations of the law of nations when all relevant conduct occurred outside the United States, and if not, what connection to the United States is required?
The presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the Alien Tort Statute. Nothing in the ATS rebuts that presumption. Therefore, claims based on conduct occurring in the territory of a foreign sovereign are not cognizable under the ATS unless they "touch and concern" the territory of the United States with sufficient force to displace the presumption; mere corporate presence in the United States is insufficient.
No. The ATS does not generally apply extraterritorially, and plaintiffs' claims—arising from conduct and injuries that occurred in Nigeria—do not sufficiently touch and concern the United States to overcome the presumption. The case was dismissed.
Kiobel dramatically narrowed the ATS by making extraterritoriality a threshold barrier: plaintiffs must show that their claims significantly touch and concern the United States. In practice, it curtailed many foreign-cubed cases (foreign plaintiffs, foreign defendants, foreign conduct) and shifted litigation strategy toward identifying substantial domestic conduct, U.S. defendants, or strong U.S. regulatory interests. The decision also left unresolved, at that time, whether corporations could be liable under the ATS—a question later limited in Jesner v. Arab Bank (2018) as to foreign corporations—while reinforcing Sosa's caution against expansive federal common lawmaking. For law students, Kiobel is essential to mastering statutory interpretation canons, federal courts' role in transnational disputes, and the interface between international law norms and U.S. judicial power.