{ "id": "R44947", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "R", "number": "R44947", "active": true, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "The Alien Tort Statute: A Primer", "retrieved": "2022-02-04T04:03:42.750637", "id": "R44947_5_2022-01-11", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2022-01-11_R44947_988825aa73f8d17399570a2891e53d559a5019ff.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44947/5", "sha1": "988825aa73f8d17399570a2891e53d559a5019ff" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2022-01-11_R44947_988825aa73f8d17399570a2891e53d559a5019ff.html" } ], "date": "2022-01-11", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R44947", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 581669, "date": "2018-06-01", "retrieved": "2018-06-12T14:10:25.124685", "title": "The Alien Tort Statute (ATS): A Primer", "summary": "Passed by the First Congress as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) has been described as a provision \u201cunlike any other in American law\u201d and \u201cunknown to any other legal system in the world.\u201d In its current form, the complete text of the statute provides the following: \u201cThe 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.\u201d While just one sentence, the ATS has been the subject of intense interest in recent decades, as it evolved from a little-known jurisdictional provision to a prominent vehicle for foreign nationals to seek redress in U.S. courts for injuries caused by human rights offenses and acts of terrorism.\nThe ATS has its historical roots in founding-era efforts to give the federal government supremacy over the nation\u2019s power of foreign affairs and to avoid international conflict arising from disputes about the treatment of aliens in the United States. Although it has been part of U.S. law since 1789, the ATS was rarely used for nearly two centuries. In 1980, that long dormancy came to an end when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered a landmark decision, Fil\u00e1rtiga v. Pe\u00f1a-Irala, which held that the ATS permits claims for violations of modern international human rights law.\nFil\u00e1rtiga caused an explosion of ATS litigation in the decades that followed, but the Supreme Court has placed limits on ATS jurisdiction in its recent jurisprudence. In a 2004 case, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, the Court held that the ATS allows federal courts to hear only a \u201cnarrow set\u201d of claims for violations of international law. And in 2013, the Supreme Court held in Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. that the statute does not provide jurisdiction for claims between foreign plaintiffs and defendants involving matters arising entirely outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Lower courts\u2019 interpretations of these decisions are still evolving and, in some cases, conflicting, but many observers agree that Sosa and Kiobel have significantly narrowed the scope of the ATS.\nIn its most recent ATS case, Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, the Supreme Court further limited the scope of viable claims by holding that foreign corporations may not be defendants in suits brought under the ATS. Jesner involved claims by approximately 6,000 foreign nationals (or their families or estate representatives) who were injured, killed, or captured by terrorist groups in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. The plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank\u2014the largest bank in Jordan\u2014aided and abetted the terrorist organizations allegedly responsible for the attacks by maintaining bank accounts that Arab Bank knew would be used to fund terrorism and by identifying the relatives of suicide bombers so that they could be compensated with so-called \u201cmartyrdom payments.\u201d\nA divided Supreme Court held in Jesner that the claims must be dismissed because ATS jurisdiction does not extend to claims against foreign corporations, including Arab Bank. Separation-of-powers and foreign policy concerns led the Court to conclude that it would be \u201cinappropriate\u201d to permit ATS liability against foreign corporations. The High Court\u2019s narrowing of the available avenues to raise an ATS claim in Sosa, Kiobel, and Jesner has led commentators to debate whether the statute remains a viable mechanism to provide redress for human rights abuses in U.S. courts.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44947", "sha1": "aea253317c0b4289d13cd50ce17be4c07a891b6a", "filename": "files/20180601_R44947_aea253317c0b4289d13cd50ce17be4c07a891b6a.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44947", "sha1": "c58eaf4676500ac2d76dd7ae666ed87e7ef06160", "filename": "files/20180601_R44947_c58eaf4676500ac2d76dd7ae666ed87e7ef06160.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4784, "name": "International Law" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4785, "name": "Supreme Court Jurisprudence" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4878, "name": "International Terrorism, Trafficking, & Crime" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 465432, "date": "2017-09-13", "retrieved": "2018-05-10T12:34:41.118528", "title": "The Alien Tort Statute (ATS): A Primer", "summary": "Passed by the First Congress as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) has been described as a provision \u201cunlike any other in American law\u201d and \u201cunknown to any other legal system in the world.\u201d In its current form, the complete text of the statute provides: \u201cThe 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.\u201d While just one sentence, the ATS has been the subject of intense interest in recent decades, as it has evolved from a little-known jurisdictional provision to a prominent vehicle for foreign nationals to seek redress in U.S. courts for injuries caused by human rights offenses and acts of terrorism.\nThe ATS has its historical roots in founding-era efforts to give the federal government supremacy over the nation\u2019s power of foreign affairs and to avoid international conflict arising from disputes about the treatment of aliens in the United States. Although it has been part of U.S. law since 1789, the ATS was rarely used for nearly two centuries. In 1980, that long dormancy came to an end when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered a landmark decision, Fil\u00e1rtiga v. Pe\u00f1a-Irala, which held that the ATS permits claims for violations of modern international human rights law.\nFil\u00e1rtiga caused an explosion of ATS litigation in the decades that followed, but the Supreme Court has placed outer limits on ATS jurisdiction in two more recent decisions. In a 2004 case, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, the Court held that the ATS allows federal courts to hear only a \u201cnarrow set\u201d of claims for violations of international law. And in 2013, the Supreme Court held in Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. that the statute does not provide jurisdiction for claims between foreign plaintiffs and defendants involving matters arising entirely outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Lower courts\u2019 interpretations of these decisions are still evolving\u2014and, in some cases, conflicting, but many observers agree that Sosa and Kiobel have significantly narrowed the scope of the ATS.\nIn April 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, an ATS case against one the largest financial institutions in the Middle East. The plaintiffs in Jesner allege that Arab Bank maintained accounts for known terrorists; accepted donations that it knew would be used to fund terrorist activity; and distributed millions of dollars to families of suicide bombers in so-called \u201cmartyrdom\u201d payments. The Second Circuit dismissed the case on the ground that the \u201claw of nations\u201d that is actionable under the ATS does not impose liability on corporate entities. But every other U.S. court of appeals to consider the issue has reached the opposite conclusion, holding that corporate liability is available under the ATS. The Supreme Court ostensibly granted certiorari in Jesner to resolve this circuit split over the question of corporate liability.\nJesner has generated significant attention among observers, including some Members of Congress. Senators Whitehouse and Graham filed an amici brief advocating for reversal of the Second Circuit\u2019s decision. The Senators\u2019 brief argues that the ATS serves as part of a larger legislative scheme to address terrorism, and that a limitation on corporate liability would create gaps in the United States\u2019 legal framework for combating terrorism. The Solicitor General also filed an amicus brief on behalf of the United States arguing that Jesner was wrongly decided. However, the Solicitor General\u2019s brief suggests that the case may be dismissed on other grounds by recommending that it be remanded to the Second Circuit for consideration of whether the claims are sufficiently connected to the United States to satisfy Kiobel\u2019s presumption against extraterritoriality.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44947", "sha1": "8dcaa82b0c923123b0985470948f22391c3bb981", "filename": "files/20170913_R44947_8dcaa82b0c923123b0985470948f22391c3bb981.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44947", "sha1": "0bb860fdf7afb6eda3170480694bbac85bf6c99c", "filename": "files/20170913_R44947_0bb860fdf7afb6eda3170480694bbac85bf6c99c.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4784, "name": "International Law" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4785, "name": "Supreme Court Jurisprudence" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4878, "name": "International Terrorism, Trafficking, & Crime" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Constitutional Questions", "Foreign Affairs", "Intelligence and National Security" ] }