Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC

Supreme Court of the United States · 2018 · Federal Courts

584 U.S. 241 (2018)

Updated August 1, 2026

Federal CourtsATScorporate liabilityAlien Tort Statuteforeign corporationsSosaseparation of powersforeign relations

Facts

Petitioners are foreign nationals who alleged that they or their family members were injured or killed in terrorist attacks in the Middle East. They sued Arab Bank, PLC, a major Jordanian financial institution, under the ATS, seeking to impose liability on the bank for the conduct of its human agents, including high-ranking officials, who allegedly facilitated transfers to terrorist groups. Petitioners alleged the bank used its New York branch to clear dollar-denominated transactions through CHIPS that benefited terrorists and used the branch to launder money for a Texas-based charity allegedly affiliated with Hamas. Most of the alleged conduct occurred in the Middle East, with only the New York CHIPS transactions and the Texas-charity allegation tying the case to the United States.

Issue

Whether the Judiciary may recognize and enforce Alien Tort Statute liability against a foreign corporation, absent explicit congressional authorization. More specifically, the question was whether foreign corporations may be defendants in ATS suits.

Rule

Before recognizing a common-law action under the ATS, courts must apply Sosa's framework and exercise great caution because ATS litigation implicates separation-of-powers and foreign-relations concerns. Absent further action from Congress, it is inappropriate for courts to extend ATS liability to foreign corporations; accordingly, foreign corporations may not be defendants in suits brought under the ATS.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A group of Peruvian nationals sues North Darya Metals, Ltd., a mining company incorporated and headquartered in Kazakhstan, in federal court in Chicago under the Alien Tort Statute. They allege the company’s managers abroad knowingly supplied equipment to militias that committed genocide in Peru, and they seek damages from the company itself.

How should the court rule on the ATS claim against the company?

Explanation. The majority held that foreign corporations may not be defendants in suits brought under the ATS absent further action from Congress. Even assuming the underlying conduct implicates a settled international norm, Sosa requires judicial caution, and the Court concluded it is inappropriate for courts to extend ATS liability to foreign corporations.