Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsAlien Tort StatuteExtraterritorialityAlien Tort StatuteATSpresumption against extraterritorialityfederal common lawforeign sovereign territory

Facts

Petitioners, Nigerian nationals, alleged that respondents' Nigerian subsidiary engaged in oil exploration in Ogoniland, Nigeria, and that after local protests over environmental effects, respondents enlisted the Nigerian Government to suppress the protests. According to the complaint, Nigerian military and police forces attacked villages, beat, raped, killed, and arrested residents, and destroyed or looted property, while respondents allegedly aided and abetted by providing food, transportation, compensation, and use of property. Petitioners later moved to the United States, obtained political asylum, and sued under the ATS. All of the alleged principal conduct underlying the suit occurred in Nigeria.

Issue

Whether, and under what circumstances, courts may recognize a cause of action under the Alien Tort Statute for violations of the law of nations occurring within the territory of a sovereign other than the United States. More specifically, whether the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to ATS claims and bars this suit based on foreign conduct.

Rule

The presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the Alien Tort Statute, and nothing in the ATS rebuts that presumption. When all the relevant conduct occurs outside the United States, the claim is barred; and even where claims touch and concern the territory of the United States, they must do so with sufficient force to displace the presumption, while mere corporate presence is insufficient.

🔒

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.

Marisol Vega, a citizen of Peru now living in Miami, sues Norhaven Minerals Ltd., a corporation incorporated in Canada, in federal court. She alleges the company paid local security forces in Peru to attack villagers near a mine, and that all planning meetings, payments, and assaults occurred in Peru; Norhaven only maintains an investor-relations office in Chicago.

Under the majority's rule, is the Alien Tort Statute claim most likely barred?

Explanation. The majority held that the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to ATS claims, that the ATS contains no clear indication of extraterritorial reach, and that claims are barred when all relevant conduct occurred outside the United States. It added that even if a defendant is present here, mere corporate presence is insufficient to displace the presumption. (Derived from Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (n.d.).)