Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe · ¶31

These criticisms resonated, and since then, various Members of the Court have thoughtfully explained the problems with Sosa’s openness—no matter how limited—to judicially created causes of action under the ATS. See Jesner, 584 U. S., at 274 (THOMAS, J., concurring); id., at 280–293 (GORSUCH, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); Nestlé, 593 U. S., at 634–640 (opinion of THOMAS, J., joined by GORSUCH and KAVANAUGH, JJ.); see also id., at 658 (ALITO, J., dissenting) (noting the “strong arguments that federal courts should never recognize new claims under the ATS”). These opinions highlight the great difficulty of satisfying Sosa’s second step under our modern separation-of-powers precedent.

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