## Facts

- Great Britain protested a raid by a French force against a British colony/settlement at Sierra Leone on the West African coast.
- Some U.S. citizens allegedly participated in or aided the attack while the United States was at peace with Great Britain.
- The executive branch requested the Attorney General’s advice on available U.S. legal remedies.
- The legal background included the Neutrality Act of 1794 and the federal courts’ jurisdiction over suits by aliens for torts in violation of the law of nations or U.S. treaties (later codified as the Alien Tort Statute).

## Issues

1. Whether, under then-existing federal criminal law, U.S. citizens could be criminally prosecuted in U.S. courts for hostile acts that originated or occurred in foreign territory, and possibly in part on the high seas.
2. Whether injured aliens could bring civil actions in U.S. federal courts against the U.S. citizens involved for torts committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.

## Decision

- The Attorney General concluded that, to the extent the complained-of conduct originated or took place in a foreign country, it was not within the cognizance of U.S. courts under existing federal criminal law.
- He indicated that prosecution for conduct on the high seas might be possible under federal statutes addressing maritime offenses, but he expressed statutory doubt.
- He concluded that injured foreign persons or entities had a civil remedy in U.S. courts because federal jurisdiction was expressly granted where an alien sues for a tort only in violation of the law of nations or a U.S. treaty.

## Legal Principles

- Federal criminal jurisdiction was treated as limited to the reach clearly supplied by statute; hostile acts occurring in foreign territory were not prosecutable absent explicit authorization.
- Certain offenses on the high seas may fall within federal criminal cognizance, subject to the scope and clarity of congressional enactments.
- Federal courts have jurisdiction over civil suits by aliens for torts committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.
- Civil remedies can provide redress for international-law violations even when criminal punishment is unavailable under existing statutes.

## Conclusion

The opinion drew a sharp distinction between limited statutory authority for criminal prosecution of U.S. citizens for foreign-territory hostilities and an express federal-court forum for civil redress by aliens for torts violating the law of nations or U.S. treaties.


1 Op. Att’y Gen. 57 (1795)