Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe · ¶16

That changed in 1980. In Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876, the Second Circuit permitted an ATS suit by foreign plaintiffs against a foreign offender for engaging in torture in violation of international law. The court identified no express cause of action; instead, it held that the ATS “open[s] the federal courts for adjudication of the rights already recognized by international law.” Id., at 887. Taking note, other plaintiffs urged courts to allow private rights of action under the ATS for various alleged human rights abuses. See, e.g., Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F. 2d 774 (CADC 1984) (per curiam); Kadic v. Karadžić, 70 F. 3d 232 (CA2 1995); Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., 197 F. 3d 161 (CA5 1999); In re Estate of Marcos, Human Rights Litigation, 25 F. 3d 1467 (CA9 1994); Abebe-Jira v. Negewo, 72 F. 3d 844 (CA11 1996).

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