Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe · ¶21

Since Sosa, we have repeatedly turned away plaintiffs asserting claims under the ATS. In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Pe troleum Co., we held that any ATS claims are subject to the presumption against extraterritoriality; thus, those “seeking relief for violations of the law of nations occurring outside the United States” are “barred.” 569 U. S., at 124. We reiterated that point in Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe, holding that “allegations of general corporate activity . . . cannot alone establish domestic application of the ATS.” 593 U. S. 628, 634 (2021). And in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, we refused to impose ATS liability on foreign corporations. 584 U. S., at 272.

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