Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
133 S. Ct. 1659
SCOTUS2013Background
- Ogoni region in Niger Delta alleged to have suffered state-backed violence during SPDC operations.
- Petitioners, Nigerian nationals now in the U.S. as asylum recipients, sue Dutch and English parents and Nigerian subsidiary under ATS for aiding abuses.
- District Court dismissed some ATS claims; others survived and were appealed; Second Circuit dismissed the entire complaint.
- Court granted certiorari to decide (a) whether ATS recognizes causes of action for conduct in a foreign territory and (b) related extraterritoriality questions.
- Court affirms the judgment, holding ATS claims about conduct abroad are barred by the presumption against extraterritoriality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ATS claims can reach conduct abroad. | Petitioners argue ATS reaches overseas abuses against law-of-nations norms. | Respondents rely on presumption against extraterritoriality to bar extraterritorial claims. | Presumption applies; ATS claims for foreign-territory conduct are barred. |
| Whether text/history of ATS rebuts extraterritoriality presumption. | Petitioners contend text/history show extraterritorial reach and congressional intent. | Respondents argue no clear indication of extraterritoriality in ATS. | No clear indication; presumption stands. |
| Whether mere corporate presence in U.S. suffices to establish ATS jurisdiction. | Petitioners rely on global corporate presence to vindicate U.S. interests. | Respondents assert mere presence is insufficient to displacement of presumption. | Mere corporate presence is insufficient; jurisdiction does not lie here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) (establishes limited private claims under ATS with definite norms)
- Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010) (presumption against extraterritorial application governs statutes lacking clear extraterritoriality)
- EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244 (1991) (presumption against extraterritorial application; foreign policy concerns)
- Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007) (extraterritoriality limits on private rights; focus on domestic acts)
- Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980) (ATS jurisdiction for torture abroad based on universal norms)
- In re Estate of Marcos, Human Rights Litig., 25 F.3d 1467 (9th Cir. 1994) (recognizes private ATS action for rights violations abroad)
- Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC, 671 F.3d 736 (9th Cir. 2011) (ATS not limited to conduct within the United States (en banc))
- Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 654 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (ATS extraterritoriality not categorically barred)