Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Jesner v. Arab Bank PLC

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Jesner v. Arab Bank PLC
Term: 2017
Important Dates
Argument: October 11, 2017
Decided: April 24, 2018
Outcome
Second Circuit affirmed
Vote
5 -4
Majority
Anthony Kennedy • Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch
Concurring
Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch
Dissenting
Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan


Jesner v. Arab Bank PLC is a case argued during the October 2017 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Argument in the case was held on October 11, 2017. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Between 2004 and 2010, Joseph Jesner was one of a number of civil plaintiffs who filed various lawsuits in federal district court against Arab Bank, PLC, under the Alien Tort Statute, which gives federal courts jurisdiction to hear "any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." The plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank, PLC, had financial ties to terrorist bombings in countries outside of the U.S. that resulted in injuries to the plaintiffs or their family members. A federal district court dismissed the lawsuits, holding that a binding precedent of the Second Circuit categorically prohibited corporate liability under the statute. A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit upheld the district court's decision.
  • The issue: Does the Alien Tort Statute categorically prohibit corporate liability as the Second Circuit holds or does the statute allow corporations to face civil lawsuits for alleged violations of international law or a U.S. treaty?
  • The outcome: The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Second Circuit.


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[1]

    Background

    This was a case about whether a federal law, the Alien Tort Statute, prohibits civil lawsuits against foreign corporations.

    The petitioner, Joseph Jesner, was one of a number of civil plaintiffs who filed various lawsuits in federal district court against Arab Bank, PLC, under the Alien Tort Statute between 2004 and 2010. The statute, sometimes referred to as the Alien Tort Claims Act, was designed to allow federal courts to take jurisdiction in cases filed by foreign nationals in U.S. courts for alleged violations of either international law or a treaty to which the U.S. is a signatory. Each of the petitioners in this case alleged that Arab Bank, PLC (hereafter, Bank) — a Jordanian-based financial institution with branches around the world, including in New York, New York — allegedly financed and facilitated terrorist-related activities that resulted in injuries to the plaintiffs or their direct family members. The Bank was considered a corporate entity under the statute.

    In May of 2013, the Bank filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuits, arguing that a precedent of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, prohibited the filing of lawsuits under the Alien Tort Statute against corporate entities. In August of 2013, the district court issued an order that agreed with the Bank's position, holding,[1]

    “

    The law of this Circuit is that plaintiffs cannot bring claims against corporations under the ATS. See Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010), affʹd, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013). A decision by a panel of the Second Circuit 'is binding unless and until it is overruled by the Court en banc or by the Supreme Court.' ... Because the Supreme Court affirmed [this Circuitʹs Kiobel decision] on other grounds, the Second Circuitʹs holding on corporate liability under the ATS remains intact. Nothing in the Supreme Courtʹs affirmance undercuts the authority of the Second Circuitʹs decision.[2]

    		”

    The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. A three-judge circuit panel composed of Judges Denny Chin, Robert Sack, and Susan Carney heard the appeal. In a unanimous opinion by Judge Sack, the court upheld the district court's order. However, the panel did so while acknowledging that the circuit's opinion in Kiobel (hereafter, Kiobel I) might need to be revisited in light of the affirmance by the U.S. Supreme Court (hereafter, Kiobel II). Judge Sack wrote,[1]

    “

    Kiobel II is bolstered by what appears to be a growing consensus among our sister circuits that the ATS allows for corporate liability. To date, the other circuits to have considered the issue have all determined that corporate liability is possible under the ATS. ... Kiobel II suggests a reading of the ATS that is at best 'inconsistent' with Kiobel Iʹs core holding, which along with the views of our sister circuits indicates that something may be wrong with Kiobel I. We nonetheless decline to conclude that Kiobel II overruled Kiobel I. ... We will leave it to either an en banc sitting of this Court or an eventual Supreme Court review to overrule Kiobel I if, indeed, it is no longer viable. ... The Supreme Court granted certiorari on this issue in 2011 when it first decided to hear an appeal from Kiobel I. ... Having nonetheless avoided addressing the issue directly in Kiobel II, perhaps it would decide to grant certiorari on this issue again—especially in light of the divergence of federal case law since.[2]

    		”

    In light of the circuit panel's decision not to overturn a circuit precedent, and the decision of the Second Circuit not to review the case en banc, the petitioners appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Petitioners' challenge

    Joseph Jesner et al., the petitioners, challenged the holding of the Second Circuit. Jesner et al. argued that the Second Circuit's holding in Kiobel I categorically foreclosing corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute was at odds with both the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Kiobel II as well as the holding among other U.S. courts of appeal.

    Certiorari granted

    On October 5, 2016, Joseph Jesner et al., the petitioners, initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Second Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court granted Jesner's certiorari request on April 3, 2017. Argument in the case was held on October 11, 2017.[3]

    Question presented

    Question presented:

    "This case presents the question this Court granted certiorari to resolve, but ultimately left undecided, in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013): Whether the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, categorically forecloses corporate liability."[3]

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[4]



    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[5]

    Outcome

    The Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit.[6]

    The majority decision

    Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion for the majority, joined in part by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch.

    Justice Kennedy wrote that the purpose of the statute had been to preserve foreign relations by ensuring that there was a U.S. forum in cases "where the failure to provide one might cause another nation to hold the United States responsible for an injury to a foreign citizen." But applying the statute to this case, he wrote, would instead cause "significant diplomatic tensions with Jordan, a critical ally in one of the world’s most sensitive regions." Further, he continued, "absent further action from Congress it would be inappropriate for courts to extend ATS liability to foreign corporations." For those reasons, he concluded, foreign corporations may not be sued under the ATS.[6]

    Concurence by Justice Thomas

    Justice Thomas joined the court's ruling and wrote separately. Thomas wrote, "Courts should not be in the business of creating new causes of action under the Alien Tort Statute, especially when it risks international strife. And the Alien Tort Statute likely does not apply to suits between foreign plaintiffs and foreign defendants."[6]

    Concurrence by Justice Alito

    Justice Alito concurred in the court's judgment and in parts of Kennedy's opinion and also wrote separately. Alito wrote that he believed the court's ruling "is compelled not only by 'judicial caution,' but also by the separation of powers."[6]

    Concurrence by Justice Gorsuch

    Justice Alito concurred in the court's judgment and in parts of Kennedy's opinion and also wrote separately. Gorsuch believed that "there are two more fundamental reasons why this lawsuit must be dismissed." Gorsuch wrote, "the job of creating new causes of action and navigating foreign policy disputes belongs to the political branches."[6]

    Dissent by Justice Sotomayor

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the court's ruling, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan. Sotomayor believed that the court's ruling "absolves corporations from responsibility under the ATS for conscience-shocking behavior." She wrote:

    “ I disagree both with the Court’s conclusion and its analytic approach. The text, history, and purpose of the ATS, as well as the long and consistent history of corporate liability in tort, confirm that tort claims for law of-nations violations may be brought against corporations under the ATS. Nothing about the corporate form in itself raises foreign-policy concerns that require the Court, as a matter of common-law discretion, to immunize all foreign corporations from liability under the ATS, regardless of the specific law-of-nations violations alleged. I respectfully

    dissent.[6][2]

    		”

    The opinion

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, In re: Arab Bank, PLC Alien Tort Statute Litigation, December 8, 2015
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, April 3, 2017
    4. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Jesner v. Arab Bank PLC, argued October 11, 2017
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Jesner v. Arab Bank PLC, argued October 11, 2017
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 United States Supreme Court, "Jesner v. Arab Bank PLC Opinion," April 24, 2018
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Jesner_v._Arab_Bank_PLC&oldid=8891705"