Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe · ¶90
If the ATS allows these three implied causes of action drawn from international law, then it is hard to see why it does not allow others similarly drawn from that body of law. Indeed, this is a key part of Sosa’s reasoning and its central holding. See Bucklew v. Precythe, 587 U. S. 119, 136 (2019) (“[J]ust as binding as [a case’s] holding is the reasoning underlying it”). When Congress passed the ATS, “the accepted conception” of the common law was that federal courts, when adjudicating individual cases, were “discover[ing]” a pre-existing and “‘transcendental body of law outside of any particular State’” and applying it. Sosa, 542 U. S., at 725. Working under that assumption, Congress omitted any specific causes of action from the ATS, see §1350, and left it to courts to draw upon the body of international law, which included the Blackstone three, and apply relevant principles in…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.