June 23, 2026

"What is clear is that the majority today forecloses future reliance on Sosa and shuts the courthouse doors to almost any claimed violation of international law under the [Alien Tort Statute]."

"That includes torture. See, e.g., Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876, 878 (CA2 1980) (ATS suit brought by plaintiff alleging that his son had been kidnapped and tortured to death in retaliation for the plaintiff’s political beliefs). It includes forced labor. See, e.g., Licea v. Curacao Drydock Co., 584 F. Supp. 2d 1355, 1359 (SD Fla. 2008) (ATS suit alleging that the defendant trafficked Cubans to Curacao, held them in captivity, and forced them to work repairing ships and oil platforms). It also includes perhaps the most universally condemned crime in the modern era: genocide. See, e.g., Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F. 3d 232, 236–237 (CA2 1995) (ATS suit alleging 'brutal acts of rape, forced prostitution, forced impregnation, torture, and summary execution, carried out by Bosnian-Serb military forces as part of a genocidal campaign'). 'Like the pirates of the 18th century,' whose conduct so concerned Blackstone and the First Congress, 'today’s torturers, slave traders, and perpetrators of genocide are "hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind."' NestlĂ©, 593 U. S., at 647 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). As to each of these offenses, as to each of these enemies of mankind, the majority decides that there is simply no way that a suit could possibly proceed without offending Congress. Noticeably absent from the majority’s analysis is any evidence that Congress would be offended by these suits. Of course, there may be reasons why allowing an individual ATS suit to proceed would be unwise. That possibility, however, should be addressed on a case-by-case basis...."

Writes Justice Ketanji-Brown Jackson, dissenting in Cisco Systems v. Doe, announced this morning.

18 comments:

Vance said...

I don't even know what this case is about but since Jackson is hysterical and full of hyperbole, the outcome was probably good from the majority.

n.n said...

The historical precedents are of equitable and inclusive affirmative actions of redistributive and retributive change colored by Diversity, entertaining abortive ideation to relieve burdens where they are deemed an obstacle to progress and exercising liberal license.

n.n said...

The Bosnian-Serbs were responding to genocidal ambitions of what would come to be labeled Kosovans. Something similar happened with Xhosa vs Zulu and South Africans, Hutu vs Tutsi, Kenyan elite vs deplorables, etc. And in modern times, mother vs child... fetus. Baby Lives Matter

Sydney said...

The internet tells me this suit involved the claim that Cisco Systems developed technology specifically for the Chinese government so they could catch and punish members of Fulan Gong, and that Cisco should be held liable for that. Isn't that like holding the makers of weapons or airplanes or anything that could be used to harm others liable for the actions of their customers?

tim maguire said...

Is her argument that violations of international law committed outside the territory of the United States should be brought before US courts?

If so, I disagree with her. That's not what we maintain a court system for. We are not the world's policeman.

Enigma said...

The 9th Circuit brought a dead 2014 case back in 2023. Never underestimate the 9th, nor underestimate KBJ.

chuck said...

I was wondering where that bit of incoherent whatever came from, and then, Ketanji-Brown Jackson, and all became clear.

Gusty Winds said...

there is simply no way that a suit could possibly proceed without offending Congress. Noticeably absent from the majority’s analysis is any evidence that Congress would be offended by these suits

I don't understand the full context of the case. However, I am a bit sympathetic to Justice Brown's statement.

I'm offended by Congress. They don't do shit except hold grandstanding hearings. And nothing solid ever comes out of them. No action... nothing.

Congress obviously has no fear of their voters. They should be offended more often.

Leland said...

As to each of these offenses, as to each of these enemies of mankind, the majority decides that there is simply no way that a suit could possibly proceed without offending Congress. Noticeably absent from the majority’s analysis is any evidence that Congress would be offended by these suits.

That’s an ugly misinterpretation of the majority’s opinion. The majority does not believe in a judicial right of action. If Congress wants to create a statutory right of action, they may do so, and then then plaintiffs could bring a case to the courts.

Yancey Ward said...

KBJ's complaint is that Congress has not acted so the courts must.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

The quote is from Sotomayor’s dissent, not Jackson’s.

Yancey Ward said...

Is the excerpt KBJ's or Sotomayor's dissent. The excerpt does quote a previous dissent from Sotomayor.

Josephbleau said...

I understood that all the suits in the world were placed under the jurisdiction of a judge in Spain. I am amused that Sotomayor wants to go back to the 16th century rule that pirates and similar pests should be hung without trial.

ChrisC said...

Straight forward application of a 250 year old federal statute. KBJ - "AAARRGGHH, blah, blah, blah." Barrett, narrows her eyes and bares her teeth. Kavannagh, "Amy, hey, relax, let's go get a cup of coffee and talk about our summer vacations."

Peachy said...

OT:
Judge Sparkle Sooknanan (yes, that’s her actual name) the daughter of immigrants from Trinidad is a Biden appointee who has militantly engaged in judicial activism on issues involving foreign nationals in the United States is at it again, this time ruling that the federal government was forbidden to verify the citizenship of voters because it violates their privacy. Has she ever heard of the IRS? “All in all, the federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote. This Court cannot stand idly by while that happens,” Sooknanan falsely claimed. The only people whose voting rights are threatened are those who should not be voting because they’re non-citizens. Much as Judge Sparkle should not only not be on the bench, but shouldn’t be allowed within a thousand feet of a gavel or a courthouse. Voting isn’t threatened by citizenship verification, it’s threatened by those ineligible to vote who are voting and those who ineligible being counted in censuses and having those numbers used to allocate districts. Judge Sparkle Sooknanan isn’t the ‘court’, she has no authority to intervene here, only an ideological mandate to protect the corrupt system that made her.

RCOCEAN II said...

So now that we've heard from the Leftwing idealogue whose views are "untethered to the constitution" what did the adults on the SCOTUS say?

BTW, the following Republicans in the Senate voted to confirm her - Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitt Romney. Mittens of course, lied in 2012 and 2018 about how "Severely conservative" he was. And this also shows that re-electing Collins is a waste of time. A democrat would cause less damage.

RCOCEAN II said...

Here's what the SCOTUS adults say:

"We recognize, as does the dissent, post, at 23–24, that
ATS and TVPA cases frequently involve heinous and inhumane acts. The political branches or other international actors may well provide redress. But we decline to distort the
statutory text or the Constitution’s allocation of powers to
enlist U. S. courts in that project. The judgment of the
Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. "

RCOCEAN II said...

noticing "judicial activism" is fine. The question is what are the Republicans - who control Congress and the Presidency" going to do about it?

Post a Comment

Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: DON'T USE ITALICS.