Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe · ¶94

The majority does not explain why implied causes of action for the Blackstone three are permissible but implied causes of action for any other norm of international law, which either existed in 1791 or exist today, are not. The majority instead turns down a different road, one paved not with the opinions of the Court, which are the law, but with the opinions of individual Justices, which are not. Despite claiming that its “starting point is Sosa’s key insight,” the majority veers off with its very next paragraph. Ante, at 7. It observes that Justice Scalia, who concurred in part and concurred in the judgment in Sosa, “would have stopped” with just the Blackstone three, ante, at 7, and then in the next paragraph, cites four more individual opinions expressing sympathy for that view, but none of which was the controlling majority opinion. See ante, at 8 (citing Jesner, 584 U. S., at 274…

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