Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
569 U.S. (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The presumption against extraterritorial application applies to claims under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). For an ATS claim based on conduct occurring in a foreign country to proceed, the claim must touch and concern the territory of the United States with sufficient force to displace this presumption.
Facts:
- Petitioners were residents of Ogoniland in Nigeria who began protesting the environmental effects of oil exploration by Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC).
- SPDC is a Nigerian subsidiary of Royal Dutch Petroleum Company (a Dutch corporation) and Shell Transport and Trading Company (a British corporation), the respondents.
- Petitioners alleged that in the early 1990s, the respondent corporations enlisted the Nigerian government to violently suppress the protests.
- Nigerian military and police forces allegedly attacked Ogoni villages, committing acts of extrajudicial killing, torture, rape, and property destruction against residents.
- Petitioners claimed the respondents aided and abetted these atrocities by providing food, transportation, and compensation to Nigerian forces and allowing them to use corporate property as a staging ground for attacks.
- Following these events, the petitioners fled Nigeria, moved to the United States, and were granted political asylum.
Procedural Posture:
- Nigerian nationals (Petitioners) sued Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. and other corporations (Respondents) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).
- The District Court dismissed some of the claims but denied the respondents' motion to dismiss claims of aiding and abetting torture, crimes against humanity, and cruel treatment.
- The District Court certified its order for an immediate, interlocutory appeal.
- On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, dismissed the entire complaint, holding that the law of nations does not recognize corporate liability for such violations.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the question of corporate liability under the ATS.
- After initial oral arguments, the Supreme Court ordered the parties to submit new briefs and re-argue the case on a different question: whether and under what circumstances the ATS applies to violations occurring in the territory of a foreign sovereign.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Alien Tort Statute overcome the presumption against extraterritorial application to allow claims for violations of international law that occurred entirely within the territory of a foreign sovereign?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
No. The Alien Tort Statute (ATS) does not overcome the presumption that United States law governs domestically but does not apply in other countries. The principles underlying the presumption against extraterritoriality constrain courts from recognizing causes of action under the ATS for conduct occurring in the territory of another sovereign. There is no clear indication in the ATS's text, history, or purpose that Congress intended it to apply abroad. The historical context, including concerns over violations of safe conducts and ambassadorial rights, points toward addressing wrongs that occurred within the United States to avoid diplomatic strife. While piracy was a recognized offense that occurred on the high seas, it is a unique case and does not establish a general rule of extraterritorial application for all international law violations. Allowing such lawsuits for foreign conduct would risk international friction, which the presumption is designed to prevent. Therefore, claims under the ATS must 'touch and concern' the territory of the United States with sufficient force to displace the presumption, and mere corporate presence is not enough.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
Yes, I agree with the Court's judgment. The Court's opinion correctly leaves open significant questions regarding the full reach and interpretation of the Alien Tort Statute. Other statutes, such as the Torture Victim Protection Act, address many human rights abuses, and future cases not covered by that act or today's holding may require further elaboration on how the presumption against extraterritoriality should be applied.
Concurring - Justice Alito
Yes, I agree with the Court's judgment. To determine if a claim has 'sufficient force' to overcome the presumption, courts should apply the 'focus' test from Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. A cause of action is barred unless the conduct that was the 'focus' of congressional concern—here, a violation of an international law norm that is as definite and accepted as piracy, violations of safe conducts, or infringement of ambassadorial rights—takes place within the United States.
Concurring - Justice Breyer
Yes, I agree with the Court's judgment, but not its reasoning. Rather than invoking the presumption against extraterritoriality, which is ill-suited for a statute concerning foreign affairs, jurisdiction should be determined by established principles of foreign relations law. Jurisdiction under the ATS should exist where (1) the 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, such as preventing the U.S. from becoming a safe harbor for enemies of mankind. In this case, however, the parties and conduct lack sufficient ties to the United States for jurisdiction to attach.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtailed the use of the Alien Tort Statute as a primary vehicle for international human rights litigation in U.S. courts. By applying the presumption against extraterritoriality, the Court effectively closed the door on claims based on conduct that occurred entirely abroad unless a strong, tangible connection to the U.S. can be established. This shifted the legal inquiry from the nature of the international law violation to the geographic location of the wrongful conduct. Consequently, future litigants must overcome a high threshold by demonstrating that their claims 'touch and concern' the U.S. with 'sufficient force,' making it much more difficult to hold foreign corporations accountable in American courts for human rights abuses committed in other countries.
Unlock the full brief for Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.