Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe
593 U.S. 628
SCOTUS2021Background
- Six Malian nationals allege they were trafficked as child slaves to cocoa farms in Ivory Coast and forced to work producing cocoa.
- Nestlé USA and Cargill are U.S.-based purchasers/processors of cocoa that did not own or operate the Ivorian farms but provided training, fertilizer, tools, cash, and purchasing agreements to those farms.
- Respondents sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), asserting the companies aided and abetted forced child labor and seeking damages in U.S. federal court.
- The district court dismissed under Kiobel (ATS does not apply extraterritorially); the Ninth Circuit reversed for domestic defendants, finding major operational decisions originated in the U.S.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the Ninth Circuit, holding respondents’ allegations amount to an extraterritorial application of the ATS and that courts should not create the asserted cause of action here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ATS may be applied to alleged conduct tied to overseas injuries (extraterritoriality) | Doe: ATS can apply domestically because defendants’ major operational decisions were made in the U.S. | Nestlé/Cargill & U.S.: ATS presumed domestic; plaintiffs must show conduct relevant to ATS’s focus occurred in U.S.; here injury and relevant conduct occurred abroad | Court: Plaintiffs seek extraterritorial application; generic corporate decisionmaking in U.S. insufficient to satisfy the domestic-application requirement — dismissal required |
| What conduct is “relevant to the statute’s focus” (aiding-and-abetting liability) | Doe: Aiding-and-abetting is a tort that can be enforced under the ATS; domestic acts can aid foreign abuses | Petitioners/U.S.: Relevant conduct is the direct conduct causing injury (which occurred overseas); aiding-and-abetting may not be a freestanding ATS tort | Court: Even assuming aiding-and-abetting is actionable, nearly all alleged aiding conduct occurred abroad; plaintiffs pleaded only generalized corporate activity in U.S., which is inadequate to establish domestic application |
| Whether federal courts may create a new ATS cause of action to reach defendants’ alleged conduct | Doe: Courts can recognize new causes under Sosa when norms are specific, universal, and obligatory | Petitioners/U.S.: Creation of such a cause implicates separation-of-powers and foreign-policy concerns; Congress should act | Court (Thomas): Judicial creation of a new ATS cause here is improper; Sosa’s narrow framework and deference to Congress bar recognizing this claim |
| Whether domestic corporations are categorically immune from ATS suits | Doe: Corporate liability is appropriate; ATS does not shield corporations | Nestlé/Cargill: argued immunity in some filings; lower courts treated corporate status as relevant | Court: Did not decide corporate-immunity question; left open (Gorsuch concurrence and Alito dissent would reject immunity) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013) (ATS does not apply extraterritorially; presumption against extraterritoriality)
- RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 579 U.S. 325 (2016) (two-step extraterritoriality framework: presume domestic, then ask whether conduct relevant to statute’s focus occurred domestically)
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) (ATS is jurisdictional; courts may, in narrow circumstances, recognize causes of action for norms that are specific, universal, and obligatory)
- Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 584 U.S. _ (2018) (plurality: courts may not recognize ATS causes of action against foreign corporations; stresses foreign-policy concerns and deference to Congress)
- Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010) (limits on extraterritorial application of U.S. laws; mere domestic activity insufficient)
- Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, 511 U.S. 164 (1994) (issues on creating secondary-liability private causes of action)
- Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) (rejection of a general federal common law, background for Sosa’s approach)
- Hernández v. Mesa, 589 U.S. _ (2020) (caution about implying damages remedies and separation-of-powers concerns)