Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC (2017)
- Docket
- 16-499
- Decided
- 2017-01-01
- Public Good score
- 42 / 100
- Framers' Intent score
- 52 / 100
Summary
Question: Does the Alien Tort Statute prohibit corporate liability? Conclusion: The Alien Tort Statute (ATS) does not permit lawsuits against corporations. Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Court found that the original purpose of the ATS was to ensure that federal courts of the United States were available venues for foreign nationals alleging violations of international law and thereby to assuage potential foreign-relations issues. The Court reasoned that in this case, to allow the lawsuit to proceed would have the opposite policy effect, straining diplomatic relations with Jordan. If Congress wants to allow for lawsuits against foreign corporations in these types of circumstances, Congress should explicitly do so. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a concurrence in which he concluded that there are two additional reasons the lawsuit should be dismissed—that the ATS is a jurisdictional statute that does not create a new cause of action and that federal courts should require a domestic defendant before hearing a lawsuit under the ATS. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan joined. Justice Sotomayor wrote that the text, history, and purpose of the ATS support the conclusion that corporations may be sued under the law and that the Court's decision absolves corporations of responsibility for egregious human rights abuses.
Case Brief
Facts
Foreign plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank PLC, a Jordanian corporation with headquarters in London, aided and abetted Palestinian terrorist attacks by processing funds for terror organizations. The plaintiffs sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), seeking damages for violations of international law.
Procedural History
The Second Circuit reversed a district court's dismissal, holding that corporations could be liable under the ATS. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether the ATS permits corporate liability.
Issue
Does the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) permit civil suits against foreign corporations for alleged violations of international law?
Holding
No. The Alien Tort Statute does not authorize lawsuits against foreign corporations for violations of international law.
Rule
The Alien Tort Statute, enacted in 1789 to address violations of 'the law of nations,' does not extend to corporate defendants, particularly foreign corporations. The Court held that historical practice and the statute's purpose do not support treating corporations as liable under the ATS.
Reasoning
The Court rejected corporate liability under the ATS based on historical practice, noting that the statute was never interpreted to apply to corporations in its first century. The majority reasoned that allowing suits against foreign corporations would strain diplomatic relations with host nations like Jordan, where Arab Bank operates. The Court emphasized that Congress, not the judiciary, must address potential gaps in liability if it intends to permit such claims.
Significance
Jesner significantly limits the scope of the Alien Tort Statute by barring suits against foreign corporations, preventing victims of international law violations from seeking redress in U.S. courts. It shifts the responsibility to Congress to amend the ATS if corporate liability is to be restored, effectively reducing the statute's utility in addressing global human rights abuses.
Public Good Analysis
GPT: The decision blocks corporate accountability for alleged human rights violations abroad, harming vulnerable victims seeking justice and undermining democratic principles of accountability. By prioritizing diplomatic concerns over access to justice, it reduces public safety protections for international victims. | Claude: The decision limits avenues for seeking justice against corporations accused of human rights abuses abroad, potentially shielding them from accountability. While the majority focused on foreign relations concerns, this effectively prioritizes diplomatic considerations over redress for victims and diminishes the potential for deterring corporate misconduct with international impact. The dissent highlights a significant loss to vulnerable groups seeking legal recourse.
Framers' Intent Analysis
GPT: The ruling misinterprets the ATS's original purpose, which aligned with framers' commitment to enforcing natural rights via international law (e.g., Madison's view that courts should uphold 'the law of nations'). It also ignores that 18th-century courts routinely held corporations liable under similar statutes, contradicting limited government principles through judicial overreach. | Claude: The Court’s emphasis on limiting federal court jurisdiction and avoiding entanglement in foreign policy aligns with concerns expressed by James Madison in *Federalist No. 68* regarding the judiciary's role being largely about questions of law, not policy. Furthermore, strict construction of statutes—a favored approach by framers like John Marshall—supports the Court’s finding that Congress must explicitly authorize suits against corporations under the ATS if it intends such liability to exist; an expansive reading isn’t supported by original text.