Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.

2013-04-17

Headline: Court limits the Alien Tort Statute, blocking foreign human-rights lawsuits for abuses that occurred abroad and making it harder for foreign victims to sue corporations in U.S. courts.

Holding: The Court held that the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to the Alien Tort Statute, and because nothing in the statute rebuts that presumption, claims for violations occurring in another country are barred.

Real World Impact:

Makes it harder for foreign victims to sue corporations in U.S. for abuses abroad.
Leaves Congress to create a clearer statute if broader reach is desired.
Permits some cases only if they strongly "touch and concern" the United States.

Topics: human rights abuses, suing companies for overseas conduct, limits on U.S. law abroad, corporate liability, Alien Tort Statute

Summary

Background

A group of Nigerian residents who moved to the United States after alleged violent repression in Ogoniland sued Dutch, British, and Nigerian oil companies in federal court. They accused the companies of aiding and abetting Nigerian military attacks on protesters and brought claims under the Alien Tort Statute, which lets foreign nationals sue in U.S. courts for certain violations of the law of nations. The lower courts dismissed the suit in full before it reached merits review.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the Alien Tort Statute reaches violations that occurred inside another country. Relying on the presumption against extraterritoriality, the Court said that when a statute gives no clear indication that it applies abroad, it does not apply. The text and history of the Alien Tort Statute did not show a clear congressional intent to reach conduct in foreign territory. The Court emphasized foreign-policy risks and held that mere corporate presence in the United States is not enough to overcome the presumption.

Real world impact

The decision bars ATS claims for conduct that occurred entirely abroad, making it harder for foreign victims to sue corporations in U.S. courts for abuses that took place overseas. The Court suggested Congress could authorize broader claims, and noted that some abuses may still be pursued under other statutes or where the case sufficiently "touches and concerns" the United States.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices concurred in the judgment but proposed different rules. Some urged caution and left questions open; others proposed standards tying jurisdiction to clear American interests or to Sosa's historic norms.