Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC Case Brief

Supreme Court of the United States2018Docket #6379617
200 L. Ed. 2d 612 138 S. Ct. 1386 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2631 International Law Federal Courts Civil Procedure Constitutional Law

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: Victims of terrorism sued a foreign bank under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The Supreme Court held that foreign corporations cannot be sued under the ATS, citing judicial caution and the need for Congress, not courts, to create such liability due to foreign policy implications.

Legal Significance: The case establishes a categorical bar against suing foreign corporations under the Alien Tort Statute. It significantly narrows the ATS’s scope by deferring to Congress on creating liability that could impact U.S. foreign relations, reinforcing the judicial restraint principles from Sosa and Kiobel.

Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Petitioners, a group of foreign nationals, filed suit under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, against Arab Bank, PLC, a Jordanian financial institution. They alleged that they or their family members were victims of terrorist attacks in the Middle East. The petitioners claimed that Arab Bank facilitated these attacks by knowingly maintaining accounts for terrorists, processing payments for the families of suicide bombers, and using its New York branch to clear U.S. dollar-denominated transactions for terrorist-affiliated groups. This U.S.-based activity involved the Clearing House Interbank Payments System (CHIPS). The central legal theory was that the bank, as a corporate entity, was liable for torts committed in violation of the law of nations, specifically for financing terrorism. The case reached the Supreme Court after the Second Circuit, relying on its own precedent in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., held that the ATS does not permit suits against corporations. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the question of whether foreign corporations may be held liable under the ATS.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does the Alien Tort Statute permit federal courts to recognize a cause of action against a foreign corporation for violations of the law of nations?

No. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Second Circuit, holding that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipis

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does the Alien Tort Statute permit federal courts to recognize a cause of action against a foreign corporation for violations of the law of nations?

Conclusion

This decision establishes a categorical immunity for foreign corporations under the ATS, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure

Legal Rule

Foreign corporations may not be held liable as defendants in civil actions Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate veli

Legal Analysis

The Court's analysis, delivered in a fractured opinion, centered on the principles Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occa

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • The Supreme Court held that foreign corporations cannot be sued under
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate ve

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

A good lawyer knows the law; a great lawyer knows the judge.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+