In my offhand judgment, Justice Breyer’s argument about the ATS and its “fit” with the presumption [against extraterritoriality] has force. (The Chief has an answer, but it’s a very close call.) What this is actually about, though, is a monitoring problem; and on that, the Chief is right.
The ATS has become a playpen for a cabal of international law enthusiasts and plaintiffs’ lawyers. Couple the former’s wild-eyed global aspirations with the latter’s eagerness to drag corporations through our one-of-a-kind tort system, and it’s Katy, bar the door. The Chief’s rule blocks all that: if it happened abroad, that’s it. Justice Breyer’s position, in contrast, would compel the Court to monitor all the places and institutions where this stuff gets out of hand: the Ninth Circuit; the wildest district courts in the country; the folks who are in charge of the Restatement of Foreign Relations; and the people who crank up “customary” international law (which becomes “customary” when someone at Yale Law School says it is, and the Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs agrees). If some foreign employees of a U.S. company sue other employees of that company over tortious sexual harassment at the company’s foreign plants, has the defendants’ conduct “substantially and adversely affect[ed] an important American national interest,” that of serving as a beacon of sexual equality in the world? You tell me.
To ask the Supreme Court to keep an eye on this is to declare surrender. So it’s good that the Court has drawn a line. Whether it’ll hold, we’ll see.
Sexual harrassment would not be a violation of international law.
[…] saying that prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Alien Tort Statute [ATS] had “become a playpen for a cabal of international law enthusiasts and plaintiffs’ lawyers.” If the Supreme Court were to adopt the expansive view of the ATS pressed by […]
I earnestly ask Paul Wolf what is his point?
[…] Michael Greve observes that before the Supreme Court ruling, the Alien Tort Statute [ATS] had “become a playpen for a cabal of . . . plaintiffs’ lawyers.” If the Supreme Court had adopted their expansive view of the ATS (like the ability to sue over […]