Legal Definitions - Alien Tort Statute

The Alien Tort Statute (ATS), also known as the Alien Tort Claims Act, is a U.S. federal law that allows non-U.S. citizens (referred to as "aliens" in legal terms) to file civil lawsuits in U.S. federal courts.

Specifically, the ATS grants federal courts the authority to hear cases where a non-U.S. citizen sues for a civil wrong (a "tort") that was committed in violation of either "the law of nations" (meaning established international law) or a treaty of the United States. Historically, this law was seen as a way to address severe human rights abuses, but recent Supreme Court decisions have significantly narrowed its scope.

Key aspects and limitations of the ATS include:

• Who can sue: Only non-U.S. citizens.
• What they can sue for: A civil wrong that violates a "specific, universal, and obligatory" international legal norm. This means the international rule must be widely accepted, clearly defined, and binding (e.g., prohibitions against piracy, slavery, genocide, or torture).
• Where the violation must occur: Generally, the violation of international law must have taken place within the United States. This is a significant restriction.
• Who can be sued: Individuals and some corporations can be sued. However, foreign corporations generally cannot be sued under the ATS, and state governments are protected by sovereign immunity.
• Corporate Liability: For lawsuits against corporations involving overseas conduct, there must be a clear and direct link between the alleged harm and the corporation's activities or decision-making that occurred within the United States. Simply operating in the U.S. is not enough if the harmful conduct happened entirely abroad.

Here are some examples to illustrate how the Alien Tort Statute might apply:

• Example 1: Torture within U.S. borders by a private individual

  Imagine a tourist from another country, visiting the United States, is unlawfully detained and subjected to severe physical abuse amounting to torture by a private security contractor operating on U.S. soil. The tourist, as a non-U.S. citizen, could potentially use the ATS to sue the private security contractor in a U.S. federal court. This scenario fits because the plaintiff is an "alien," the act (torture) is a clear violation of a "specific, universal, and obligatory" international norm, and it occurred "within the United States."

• Example 2: Corporate complicity with a domestic link

  Consider a U.S.-based technology company whose executives, operating from their headquarters in California, knowingly design and sell sophisticated surveillance software specifically tailored for a foreign government known for its human rights abuses. This software is then used by that foreign government to systematically track, detain, and torture political dissidents in their home country. Victims of this torture, who are non-U.S. citizens, might attempt to sue the U.S. technology company under the ATS. While the direct harm occurred overseas, the crucial element here is the alleged "domestic link"—the company's decision-making and active involvement in creating and providing the tools for abuse originated from its U.S. operations. This could potentially satisfy the requirement for a connection between the cause of action and the corporation's domestic conduct.

• Example 3: Limitations on suing foreign entities for overseas conduct

  Suppose a group of non-U.S. citizens attempts to sue a *foreign-owned and operated mining corporation* in a U.S. federal court. They allege that this corporation, through its operations entirely within its home country, caused widespread environmental devastation and forcibly displaced indigenous communities, violating their human rights. The foreign corporation has no significant operational presence or decision-making related to these specific abuses within the United States. In this case, the lawsuit would likely fail under the ATS. The defendant is a "foreign corporation," which generally cannot be sued under the ATS. Furthermore, even if it were a U.S. corporation, the alleged harmful conduct occurred entirely overseas without a clear "domestic link" to the corporation's U.S. operations, which is a requirement for such claims.