## Facts

- Indonesian villagers from Aceh sued Exxon Mobil Corporation and affiliates over alleged abuses committed by Indonesian military personnel providing security for Exxon's natural-gas operations at the Arun facility.
- Plaintiffs alleged Exxon and its Indonesian subsidiary funded, equipped, and directed security forces that committed torture, killings, sexual violence, battery, and false imprisonment.
- Exxon denied responsibility, arguing the soldiers were under Indonesian control and that the claims implicated foreign-policy and political-question concerns.
- The district court initially dismissed federal statutory claims under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), while allowing common-law tort claims to proceed through discovery.
- In 2008, the district court denied summary judgment as to Exxon Mobil Corp. and ExxonMobil Oil Indonesia on state-law tort theories based on evidence of control over security arrangements, but granted summary judgment for two other U.S. affiliates for lack of particularized evidence tying them to the alleged misconduct.
- In 2009, the district court dismissed remaining tort claims on prudential-standing grounds.
- Plaintiffs appealed, and Exxon cross-appealed, asserting for the first time that corporations are categorically immune from ATS liability.

## Issues

1. Whether aiding-and-abetting liability is available under the ATS for violations of the law of nations.
2. Whether corporations are categorically immune from liability under the ATS.
3. Whether political-question or related justiciability doctrines bar adjudication of claims tied to overseas security operations and asserted diplomatic consequences.
4. Whether the district court correctly dismissed plaintiffs’ non-federal tort claims for lack of prudential standing and based on its choice-of-law analysis.
5. Whether TVPA claims may proceed against corporate defendants.

## Decision

- The court affirmed dismissal of TVPA claims against Exxon, based on circuit precedent limiting TVPA liability to natural persons.
- The court reversed dismissal of the ATS claims at issue and held aiding-and-abetting liability is cognizable under the ATS.
- The court rejected the argument that corporations are categorically immune from ATS liability.
- The court rejected Exxon's political-question and related justiciability defenses.
- The court reversed dismissal of plaintiffs’ non-federal tort claims, holding the district court erred on prudential standing and choice of law.
- The court remanded for further proceedings, including resolution of Exxon's complete-diversity challenge in the district court.

## Legal Principles

- The ATS may support claims for violations of specific, universal, and obligatory international-law norms, and may include secondary liability such as aiding and abetting where sufficiently established.
- Corporate status does not, by itself, bar ATS suits; the ATS does not create categorical corporate immunity for alleged law-of-nations violations carried out through agents.
- Political-question abstention is not triggered merely because a case touches foreign affairs; courts may adjudicate tort-based claims presenting manageable legal and factual questions.
- Prudential-standing and choice-of-law rulings that foreclose non-federal tort claims are reviewable and may be reversed where the district court applies an improper limiting approach.
- Under controlling circuit precedent, TVPA liability is limited to natural persons, precluding TVPA claims against corporations.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit reinstated ATS and related tort claims arising from alleged abuses by security forces at Exxon's Aceh operations, holding that aiding-and-abetting liability is available under the ATS and that corporations are not categorically immune, while affirming dismissal of TVPA claims against the corporate defendant and remanding for further proceedings.


Doe VIII v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 654 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2011)