Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T18:05:40.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jesner v. Arab Bank

Review products

Jesner v. Arab Bank, 138 S. Ct. 1386. United States Supreme Court, April 24, 2018.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2018

Rebecca J. Hamilton
Rebecca J. Hamilton*
Affiliation:
American University, Washington College of Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The exclusion of transnational human rights litigation from U.S. federal courts is, for most practical purposes, now complete. On April 24, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a 5–4 ruling in Jesner v. Arab Bank, deciding that foreign corporations cannot be sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).

Keywords

United States Supreme CourtAlien Tort Statutecorporate liabilityinternational human rights violations
Type
International Decisions: Edited by Harlan Cohen
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 112 , Issue 4 , October 2018 , pp. 720 - 727
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by The American Society of International Law 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 28 U.S.C. § 1350.

2 Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980).

3 Brief for Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan as Amicus Curiae at 2, Jesner v. Arab Bank, 138 S. Ct. 1386 (No. 16–499).

4 See Stewart, David P. & Wuerth, Ingrid, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.: The Supreme Court and the Alien Tort Statute, 107 AJIL 601 (2013)Google Scholar. See also Chandler, Anupam, Agora: Reflections on Kiobel, 107 AJIL 829 (2013)Google Scholar.

5 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013).

6 542 U.S. 692 (2004).

7 Id. at 732.

8 See International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, Dec. 9, 1999, TIAS 13075, 2178 UNTS 197; Case Against Al Jadeed, Case No. STL-14-05/T/CJ, Judgment (Sept. 18, 2015).

9 Sosa, 542 U.S. at n. 20.

10 Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938).

11 Sosa, 542 U.S. at n. 20.

12 Citing Kiobel, 621 F. 3d at 177 (Leval, J., concurring in judgment).

13 It is worth emphasizing that the plurality's analysis of corporate liability under part one of Sosa was dicta and future courts are not bound by it. In an ongoing ATS case against a U.S. corporation in the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema rejected the defendant's argument that Jesner prevented the suit against it from going forward. Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc., No. 1:08-cv-827 (LMB/JFA), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106026, at n. 6 (E.D. Va. June 25, 2018) (“Jesner’s careful analysis and holding suggests to this Court that the Jesner Court did not intend to disturb this status quo with respect to domestic corporations.”).

14 Brief for The United States as Amici Curiae Supporting Neither Party at 25–30, Jesner v. Arab Bank, 138 S. Ct. 1386 (2018) (No. 16–499), 2017 WL 2859943.

15 See, e.g., Tucker, Todd, Is the Supreme Court Going Too Easy on Overseas Corporations? Politico (May 8, 2018)Google Scholar, at https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/05/08/supreme-court-overseas-corporate-accountability-000659 (“In a highly globalized world, the picture emerging from America's highest court is of a playing field in which corporations enjoy plenty of rights, and the rest of us face a shrinking set of tools to hold them accountable.”).

16 Citing Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010); Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. __ (2014).

17 See generally Bookman, Pamela, Litigation Isolationism, 67 Stan. L. Rev 1081 (2015)Google Scholar.

18 See, e.g., Brief for Castro et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Jesner v. Arab Bank, 138 S. Ct. 1386 (2018) (No. 16–499), 2016 WL 6803674; Brief for Int'l Law Scholars as Amici Curiae Supporting Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Jesner v. Arab Bank, 138 S. Ct. 1386 (2018) (No. 16–499), 2017 WL 2859943; Brief for Nuremberg Scholars as Amici Curiae Supporting Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Jesner v. Arab Bank, 138 S. Ct. 1386 (2018) (No. 16–499), 2017 WL 2859943.

19 Brief for Nuremberg Scholars, supra note 18, at 4.

20 Brief of Ambassador David J. Scheffer, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law as Amici Curiae Supporting Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 9–18, Jesner v. Arab Bank, 138 S. Ct. 1386 (2018) (No. 16–499), 2017 WL 2859943.

21 See generally, Davis, Seth & Whytock, Christopher A., State Remedies for Human Rights, 98 B.U. L. Rev. 397 (2018)Google Scholar (arguing state courts are a promising forum for the provisions of remedies for international human rights violations). But see Parrish, Austen L., State Court International Human Rights Litigation: A Concerning Trend?, 3 U.C. Irvine L. Rev. 25, 39–43 (2013)Google Scholar (highlighting the barriers to success at the state level).

22 Human Rights Council, Elaboration of an International Legally Binding Instrument on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Respect to Human Rights, UN Doc. A/HRC/26/L.22/Rev.1 (June 24, 2014); see also Thielbörger, Pierre & Ackermann, Tobias, A Treaty on Enforcing Human Rights Against Business: Closing the Loophole or Getting Stuck in a Loop?, 24 Ind. J. Global Legal Stud. 43 (2017)Google Scholar.