Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
391 F. Supp. 3d 76
| D.C. Cir. | 2019Background
- Plaintiffs are Indonesian citizens (and decedents) who allege Exxon's paid military security forces in Aceh (2000–2001) committed torture, extrajudicial killing, sexual assault, arbitrary detention, and related abuses while providing security for Exxon's Indonesian operations.
- Exxon retained Indonesian military personnel for facility security, allegedly supplied vehicles/equipment, and U.S.-based executives allegedly received reports of abuses before the plaintiffs' injuries.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and common-law tort theories; non‑federal tort claims remain and are governed by Indonesian law.
- The ATS claims have a long procedural history: dismissed by the district court (2005), reinstated by the D.C. Circuit (2011), then vacated (2013); the Supreme Court’s Jesner decision (2018) prompted reexamination.
- The U.S. executive branch (State Dept. and DOJ) and the Government of Indonesia repeatedly warned that adjudication would cause serious foreign‑relations consequences; the district court found substantial diplomatic strife.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether corporations can be liable under the ATS | Plaintiffs contend ATS allows corporate liability for human‑rights violations and Exxon can be sued for aiding/controlling abuses | Exxon argues Jesner and separation‑of‑powers/foreign‑relations concerns bar corporate ATS liability (including domestic corporations) | Court dismissed ATS claims: declined to recognize domestic corporate liability here |
| Whether international law recognizes corporate liability required by Sosa step one | Plaintiffs argue corporate liability is a remedial/domestic question and ATS allows corporate defendants | Exxon argues international law does not impose liability on corporations, so Sosa step one is unsatisfied | Court found international law does not presently impose corporate liability; Sosa’s first prong not met |
| Whether Sosa step two (prudential/doorkeeping) permits corporate ATS claims | Plaintiffs urge courts should provide remedies and can look to domestic doctrines to impose corporate liability | Exxon (and political‑branch statements) argue prudential concerns, TVPA’s limitation to natural persons, and diplomatic harms counsel against judicially creating corporate liability | Court applied Sosa/Jesner prudential inquiry and declined to extend ATS to corporations absent congressional action |
| Whether foreign‑relations/separation‑of‑powers concerns permit adjudication here | Plaintiffs emphasize merits and availability of remedies in U.S. courts | Exxon and executive branch warn adjudication would harm U.S. foreign policy and bilateral relations with Indonesia | Court concluded significant diplomatic strife and separation‑of‑powers concerns require dismissal of ATS claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Sosa v. Alvarez‑Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) (ATS is jurisdictional; courts may recognize only narrow, definite international‑law norms)
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013) (presumption against extraterritorial application of the ATS; comity and foreign‑relations concerns)
- Jesner v. Arab Bank, N.A., 138 S. Ct. 1386 (2018) (plurality and concurrences foreclose ATS suits against foreign corporations and emphasize separation‑of‑powers and foreign‑policy caution)
- Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, 566 U.S. 449 (2012) (TVPA’s "individual" limits remedies to natural persons)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (implied causes of action and limits on judicial creation of remedies)
- Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001) (Bivens action not extended to corporate defendants)
- Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 654 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (D.C. Circuit opinion recognizing corporate ATS liability, later vacated)