International Law

Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC — Study Notes

Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 584 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1386, 200 L. Ed. 2d 612 (2018) (U.S. Supreme Court)

Study notes for Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.

The ATS does not allow lawsuits against foreign corporations for violations of international law.
Professor Notes

The Jesner v. Arab Bank case is a pivotal ruling regarding the scope of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The Supreme Court ruled that the ATS does not permit lawsuits against foreign corporations for violations of international law. This decision emphasizes the separation of powers, where the Court was cautious about expanding judicial authority into the realm of foreign policy and corporate liability without a clear international consensus. Professors typically highlight how this ruling reflects broader concerns about the implications of allowing such suits against foreign entities and the accountability of corporations in international law.

Cold Call Prep
  1. 1The Court ruled that the ATS does not extend to foreign corporations. What were the pivotal reasons behind this ruling?
  2. 2Explain the separation-of-powers principles that influenced the Court's decision.
  3. 3Discuss the implications of Jesner v. Arab Bank on international human rights litigation in the United States.
  4. 4What was the significance of the lack of a clearly established international-law norm of corporate liability?
  5. 5Can you identify any dissenting opinions and their main arguments?
  6. 6Compare this case to Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. in its implications for corporate liability.
  7. 7How does this case affect future claims against foreign corporations in U.S. courts?
Mnemonic Device

JAB - Jesner Against Bank; encapsulates the ruling of 'Jesner prohibits ATS suits against foreign Banks.'

Distinguish From
CaseDistinction
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.In Kiobel, the Court held that the ATS does not apply to conduct occurring outside the United States, whereas Jesner specifically addresses corporate liability.
Filártiga v. Peña-IralaFilártiga allowed for an ATS suit against an individual torturer, emphasizing personal accountability, which is distinct from the corporate liability issues in Jesner.
Sosa v. Alvarez-MachainSosa established a precedent for what constitutes a violation of customary international law under the ATS, while Jesner limited the applicability to foreign corporations without a recognized international norm.
Policy Arguments

For the Rule

Preventing ATS litigation against foreign corporations preserves the separation of powers and emphasizes that foreign policy should be handled by Congress and the Executive, not the courts.

Against the Rule

Denying suits against foreign corporations can inhibit accountability for human rights violations and undermine international norms aimed at holding all perpetrators responsible.

Class Discussion Points
  • The challenges of establishing corporate liability in international law.
  • The role of the judiciary versus legislative branches in foreign affairs.
  • Potential consequences for victims of human rights abuses if corporations are immune from liability.
  • Comparative effectiveness of the ATS in achieving justice for international law violations.
  • Future litigation strategies in light of Jesner's ruling.
Exam Angle

This case is often referenced in exams to test students' understanding of the ATS's scope and its application to entities beyond natural persons, particularly focusing on corporate liability in international law.

View Full Case Brief

Ace Your Cold Calls with Briefly

Get AI-powered case briefs, study notes, and cold call prep for every case in your casebook.