## Facts

- Nigerian nationals alleged that the Nigerian government committed abuses in Ogoniland, Nigeria, including killings, torture, unlawful detention, destruction of property, and forced exile.
- Plaintiffs alleged certain foreign oil companies and related entities aided and abetted those abuses by providing logistical and other support to Nigerian forces.
- Plaintiffs sued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, seeking civil damages for alleged violations of the law of nations occurring in Nigeria.
- The district court dismissed some claims but allowed others to proceed.
- The Second Circuit dismissed the complaint in full, reasoning that the ATS does not permit suits against corporations.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari, ordered reargument to address whether and when courts may recognize ATS causes of action for conduct occurring within a foreign sovereign’s territory, and ultimately affirmed dismissal on different grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims brought under the Alien Tort Statute.
2. Whether alleged conduct occurring entirely in a foreign country, involving foreign plaintiffs and foreign corporate defendants, can support an ATS cause of action in U.S. courts.
3. Whether a claim can proceed under the ATS when the only asserted U.S. connection is a defendant’s corporate presence in the United States.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the judgment dismissing the action.
- The Court held that the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to ATS claims and is not rebutted by the statute’s text.
- Because all relevant conduct occurred outside the United States, and the claims did not “touch and concern” U.S. territory with sufficient force, the suit could not proceed under the ATS.
- The Court stated that “mere corporate presence” in the United States is insufficient to displace the presumption.
- The Court did not decide whether corporations may ever be proper defendants under the ATS.

## Legal Principles

- The ATS does not itself create causes of action; when courts consider recognizing an ATS cause of action, separation-of-powers and foreign-relations concerns are heightened.
- The presumption against extraterritoriality constrains ATS litigation; generic statutory terms (including “any”) do not rebut the presumption.
- Claims based on foreign conduct may proceed, if at all, only when they “touch and concern” U.S. territory with sufficient force to overcome the presumption.
- Common-law “transitory tort” concepts do not answer the distinct question whether U.S. courts should recognize a federal cause of action to enforce an international norm for conduct abroad.

## Conclusion

The Court barred this foreign-plaintiff, foreign-defendant suit for foreign conduct under the ATS, holding that the statute is subject to the presumption against extraterritoriality and that a claim must have a strong U.S. connection—beyond mere corporate presence—to proceed.


Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013)