Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe · ¶2
Held: 1. Courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms under the ATS. Pp. 7–12. Two points drive the Court’s decision. First, judicial authority under Sosa’s second step was “narrow at the outset.” Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe, 593 U. S. 628, 636 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Sosa instructed federal courts to exercise “great caution in adapting the law of nations to private rights,” 542 U. S., at 728, and to assess the “practical consequences” of creating new liability under the ATS, including the “risks of adverse foreign policy consequences.” Id., at 728, 732–733. Because ATS cases by their nature implicate foreign policy, it is difficult to think of a case in which a court “might safely conclude” that a new ATS cause of action would not have detrimental foreign policy consequences. Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 584 U. S. 241, 284 (2018) (GORSUCH, J., concurring).…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.