United States: The Final Breaths of the Alien Tort Statute

On April 17, 2013, the Supreme Court decided Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum.  For all intents and purposes, the decision eliminates use of the federal Alien Tort Statute ("ATS") as an employment law weapon to be used against multinational companies for employment practices overseas.

History of the Alien Tort Statute

The ATS (also known as the Alien Tort Claims Act) – a creature of the first United States Congress and passed in 1789 – is all of one sentence long.  It reads in full:  "The 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 United States."

The ATS received little attention for over 180 years. Then, in 1980, a Paraguayan woman living in Washington, D.C. on a visitor's visa learned that a former official of the Paraguayan government (also a Paraguayan citizen), who had allegedly participated in the torture death of her 17-year-old brother, was living in Brooklyn, New York.  She sued the official under the ATS.  In Filartiga v. Pena- Irala,1 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ATS permits aliens to file tort claims against violators of what is variably known as "the law of nations," or "customary international law," including war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Over the past 25 years, a limited number of federal courts have permitted foreign victims to sue under the ATS for violations of international law, such as summary executions, genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.2

Some of those lawsuits were brought against U.S.-headquartered multinational corporations for their alleged involvement with improper and abusive labor practices in developing countries that were said to constitute human rights violations.

Historically, there has been a split among federal appellate courts as to whether ATS cases may be successfully prosecuted against private corporations.  In 2010, a federal district court and a federal appellate court held that corporate liability was unavailable under the ATS.  In one such case,3 a federal district court dismissed claims that a company was complicit in the forced labor and torture of Malian field workers located in the Ivory Coast, finding insufficient support under international law to hold corporate entities accountable under the ATCA. 

Similarly, in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum4 – the case which ultimately wound its way to the U.S. Supreme Court – the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ATS does not provide a basis for corporate liability for alleged violations of international law. 

In many cases, however, lower courts have recognized an "aiding and abetting" theory of corporate liability.  Under this theory, a corporation that assists or supports governments in conduct that violates human rights can be held liable in the United States.5 The aiding and abetting theory of corporate liability was one of the theories asserted by the plaintiffs in Kiobel.

Procedural History and Decision

Kiobel involved a group of Nigerian villagers who filed a federal court lawsuit in the Southern District of New York, claiming that several corporate entities aided and abetted the extrajudicial killing, rape and other human rights abuses committed by Nigerian military forces in connection with the corporations' oil exploration in Nigeria.  During the early 1990's, the villagers were attacked by the Nigerian military and police forces. 

The plaintiffs claimed that the corporate defendants aided and abetted the atrocities committed by providing the Nigerian military and police forces with food, transportation, and compensation.  They also alleged that the corporate defendants permitted the Nigerian forces to use defendants' property as a staging ground to attack the Nigerian villagers.  At the time the complaint was filed, the United States had granted political asylum to the villagers, all of whom were residing in the United States as legal residents. 

The case found its way to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals where, in October 2010, a divided court determined that international law does not support claims for corporate liability under the ATS.  The Kiobel majority held that international law (rather than domestic law) should determine whether the ATS should extend to corporations.  The majority concluded that international law does not warrant the extension of ATS liability to corporate actors.  In sum, the Second Circuit reasoned that customary international law has rejected the notion of corporate liability for international crimes, and no international tribunal has ever held a corporation liable for a violation of the laws of nations.

The villagers appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.  Initially, the Court was asked to determine (1) whether the issue of corporate liability under the ATS is a merits or jurisdictional question; and (2) whether corporate liability can be assessed under the ATS.  Less than one week after oral argument, however, the Court issued an order requesting supplemental briefing on the additional issue of whether, and under what circumstances, the ATS can be used to address violations of the law of nations occurring outside the United States.6

The Opinion

On April 17, 2013, Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, which unanimously upheld the Second Circuit's dismissal of the claims.  While the outcome was unanimous, the Court did not unanimously agree on the rationale.  The majority approach concluded that "the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the ATS, and that nothing in the statute rebuts that presumption." The Court addressed only the question of the extraterritorial application of the ATS, not the question of corporate liability.

The Court made it clear that it will not act as "the Supreme Court of the World."  The fear expressed in the opinion was that if the ATS applied extraterritorially without express permission from Congress, the Court would run the risk of adopting an interpretation of the law that carried "foreign policy consequences not clearly intended by the political branches."7 The Court stated that the ATS is a "strictly jurisdictional" statute and does not provide for an independent cause of action.  Rather, the ATS "allows federal courts to recognize certain causes of action based on sufficiently definite norms of international law."

The Court was not willing, however, to completely relinquish power over conduct occurring on foreign soil.  The opinion concludes:

"On these facts, all the relevant conduct took place outside the United States.  And even where the claims touch and concern the territory of the United States, they must do so with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritorial application....  Corporations are often present in many countries, and it would reach too far to say that mere corporate presence suffices.  If Congress were to determine otherwise, a statute more specific than the ATS would be required."  (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added)

The Court therefore suggested that with the right set of facts that "touch and concern the territory of the United States," the ATS may be the vehicle for aliens to prosecute conduct that occurred on foreign soil in U.S. courts.  Justices Alito and Thomas, writing separately in their concurrence, noted that this "formulation obviously leaves much unanswered."8  Although the majority rather dramatically narrowed the scope of the ATS, future courts will undoubtedly grapple with the extent to which plaintiffs might be able to assert a viable claim under the ATS. 

Breyer Concurrence

Justice Breyer, together with Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, joined in the Court's conclusion to dismiss the Kiobel claims, but did not adopt the majority's reasoning.  The Breyer concurrence operates on the basis that the ATS "was enacted with 'foreign matters' in mind,"9 and that jurisdiction under the ATS is appropriate where "(1) the alleged tort occurs on American soil, (2) the defendant is an American national, or (3) the defendant's conduct substantially and adversely affects an important American national interest...."10 Justice Breyer referred to  previous ATS cases in which the alleged ATS violators were residing in the United States, and suggested that this could be one example where a "distinct" and "important" American interest might overcome the strong presumption against extraterritorial application.

Justice Breyer did not ignore the majority's concern that the extraterritorial application of the ATS would infringe on the sovereignty of other nations.  He simply did not put as much stock in this fear.  Justice Breyer highlighted in his concurrence the safeguards that are already available, such as exhaustion of remedies, forum non conveniens, and comity. 

The Implications

Kiobel establishes that in an unstable world, multinational enterprises may not be held responsible under the ATS in U.S. courts for foreign government or other third party atrocities that may occur overseas and over which they have no control.  Of course, notwithstanding this decision, multinational enterprises must remain concerned about overseas business practices.  Global companies cannot ignore allegedly unfair employment practices, regardless of where they occur, particularly in today's world of instantaneous communication.  The elimination of the ATS as a weapon against global enterprises does not diminish the importance of addressing legitimate complaints, regardless of where they originate.

It is also uncertain how the Court's strong reluctance against imposing domestic law extraterritorially will apply in other contexts.  For example, the Kiobel decision reinforces the Court's reluctance in an earlier decision11 to apply domestic law extraterritorially, which may lend further clarity to the possible extraterritorial application of Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  

In addition, the Court's ruling could affect the viability of other claims brought under U.S. law that arise from overseas conduct.  For example, a recent trend has developed in which plaintiffs have sought to hold U.S.-based multinational enterprises liable for violations of local labor laws committed by their suppliers who disregard the companies' codes of conduct.  For example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held12 that a U.S. company's good faith requirement, contained in its code of conduct, that foreign suppliers follow ethical labor standards did not allow a supplier's employees to sue the U.S. company when their employer failed to follow the standards.  It will be interesting to see what effect, if any, the Kiobel decision will have on this trend.


1 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980).

2 See e.g. Flomo v. Firestone Natural Rubber Co., 643 F.3d 1013, 1017 (7th Cir. 2011); Romero v. Drummond Co., 552 F.3d 1303, 1315 (11th Cir. 2008); Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2009); Herero People's Reparations Corp. v. Deutsche Bank, A.G., 370 F.2d 1192 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 226 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2000); Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC, 550 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2008).

3< Doe v. Nestle, S.A.,  _______, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98991 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2010).

4 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010).

5 See, e.g., Almog v. Arab Bank., 471 F. Supp. 2d 257 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).

6 The Kiobel case drew wide interest from a variety of domestic and international parties, attracting approximately 70 amicus briefs.  http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kiobel-v-royal-dutch-petroleum/

7 EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248 (1991). 

8 Justices Alito and Thomas also reinforced the principles of Sosa v. Alvarez Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), that any further ATS claim that theoretically falls within the confines of the majority's holding must nonetheless satisfy "Sosa's requirements of definiteness and acceptance among civilized nations."

9 Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. ___, ____ (2010) (slip op., at 5-6), 130 S. Ct. 2869, 2884 (2010). 

10 See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 402.

11 Morrison, 561 U.S. ____, 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010).

12 Doe v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677 (9th Cir. 2009).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Philip M. Berkowitz
Michael G. Congiu
John Kloosterman
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions