Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe · ¶20

Recognizing the tension between this interpretation of the ATS and the limits of the judicial role, Sosa emphasized the narrowness of its view. Though it did not “close the door” to “independent judicial recognition of actionable international norms,” it underscored the need for “vigilant doorkeeping.” Id., at 729. To that end, Sosa proposed a two-step framework. First, a plaintiff must show that the norm has a “definite content and acceptance among civilized nations.” Id., at 732. (This was an effort to head off judicial creativity with respect to the norms themselves.) Second, a plaintiff must show that it would be prudent for the court to create the proposed cause of action when the political branches have not acted. Id., at 726, 736, n. 27; Jesner, 584 U. S., at 257–258 (plurality opinion). (This was a warning that courts must tread lightly, because creating rights of action is…

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