Open App →
Home › Case briefs › Federal Courts

Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe

Supreme Court of the United States · 2021 · Federal Courts
593 U.S. 628 (2021)
Updated
Federal CourtsATS extraterritorialityAlien Tort StatuteATSextraterritorialityKiobelRJR Nabiscogeneral corporate activity

Facts

The plaintiffs are six individuals from Mali who allege that they were trafficked into Ivory Coast and enslaved as children on cocoa farms. Nestlé USA and Cargill are U.S.-based companies that did not own or operate those farms, but they bought cocoa from them and provided training, fertilizer, tools, and cash in exchange for exclusive purchasing rights. The plaintiffs alleged that the companies knew or should have known the farms used child slavery and failed to use their economic leverage to stop it. The alleged resource distribution and the plaintiffs' injuries occurred abroad, while the complaint alleged generally that major operational decisions were made or approved in the United States.

Issue

Whether the plaintiffs stated a permissible domestic application of the Alien Tort Statute when their injuries and nearly all alleged aiding-and-abetting conduct occurred in Ivory Coast, but they alleged that the defendant corporations made major operational decisions in the United States.

Rule

Because the ATS does not apply extraterritorially, plaintiffs must establish that the conduct relevant to the statute's focus occurred in the United States. Allegations of general corporate activity, such as decisionmaking or operational oversight common to most corporations, are not enough by themselves to show a domestic application of 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
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Three citizens of Nepal sue Redwood Grain Trading, a Delaware corporation, in federal court in Chicago under the Alien Tort Statute. They allege they were subjected to forced labor on supplier-owned farms in Brazil, while Redwood executives in Illinois approved annual sourcing targets and compliance budgets.

Assuming the plaintiffs frame their claim as aiding and abetting forced labor, which is the best answer on whether the complaint alleges a permissible domestic application of the ATS?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, the ATS does not apply extraterritorially. At step two, plaintiffs must show that the conduct relevant to the statute's focus occurred in the United States. General corporate activity such as decisionmaking, approvals, and oversight common to most corporations is insufficient by itself. Here, the alleged aiding conduct and injuries were abroad, so the complaint still seeks an impermissible extraterritorial application.