abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

8 Aug 2012

Author:
Christopher J. Paolella, Reich & Paolella, counsel of record

[PDF] Esther Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, et al. - Supplemental brief of Professors Anthony J. Bellia Jr. & Bradford R. Clark as amici curiae in support of respondents

See all tags
In Sosa, this Court made clear that the ATS should be construed according to the understanding of the First Congress. The ATS, as originally understood, extended federal court jurisdiction to suits by aliens against U.S. citizens for intentional torts involving force against their person or personal property. Such torts violated the law of nations and required the United States to redress the harm or become responsible for the violation. Because the ATS is solely a jurisdiction statute, the presumption against extraterritoriality does not apply. The ATS did not confer, however, jurisdiction over actions by one alien against another, regardless of where the tort occurred.

Timeline