Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe · ¶93

Taken together, the opinions of these early American statesmen confirm that the ATS was understood to allow civil suits for violations of international law even without any express causes of action. They also support the conclusion that the ATS was not understood to be limited to the Blackstone three: None of these early incidents involved safe conducts, ambassadors, or piracy at sea. Instead, they involved violations of other international-law principles, including neutrality and prohibitions on “plunder” and “robbery.” 2 E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, ch. VI §78 (J. Chitty ed., 6th ed. 1844); see Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 587 U. S. 230, 239 (2019) (describing de Vattel as “the founding era’s foremost expert on the law of nations”). As Sosa did, the founding generation thus understood the ATS to leave the door open to other causes of action rooted in the law of nations…

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