Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe · ¶15

The ATS lay mostly dormant after its enactment. Litigants only occasionally invoked its jurisdictional grant. See Bolchos v. Darrel, 3 F. Cas. 810 (No. 1,607) (SC 1795) (seizure of slaves from a captured ship); Moxon v. The Fanny, 17 F. Cas. 942 (No. 9,895) (Pa. 1793) (seizure of a brig and cargo by French privateers). And in time, another statute authorized federal courts to hear claims arising under treaties. See Act of Mar. 3, 1875, §1, 18 Stat. 470, as amended, 28 U. S. C. §1331. So for almost 200 years, the ATS did virtually no work.

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.