Term: 2012
Docket: 10-1491
Esther Kiobel, Individually And On Behalf Of Her Late Husband, Dr. Barinem Kiobel, Et Al., Petitioners v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. Et Al.
- Pro
10-1491 KIOBEL V. ROYAL DUTCH PETROLEUM DECISION BELOW: 621 F.3d 111 THIS CASE TO BE ARGUED IN TANDEM WITH 11-88. ORDER OF 3/5/2012: THIS CASE IS RESTORED TO THE CALENDAR FOR REARGUMENT. THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS ADDRESSING THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: “WHETHER AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES THE ALIEN TORT STATUTE, 28 U.S.C. §1350, ALLOWS COURTS TO RECOGNIZE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF NATIONS OCCURRING WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF A SOVEREIGN OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES.” CERT. GRANTED 10/17/2011 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Whether the issue of corporate civil tort liability under the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, is a merits question, as it has been treated by all courts prior to the decision below, or an issue of subject matter jurisdiction, as the court of appeals held for the first time. 2. Whether corporations are immune from tort liability for violations of the law of nations such as torture, extrajudicial executions or genocide, as the court of appeals decisions provides, or if corporations may be sued in the same manner as any other private party defendant under the ATS for such egregious violations, as the Eleventh Circuit has explicitly held. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 06-4800, 06-4876
The case of Esther Kiobel versus Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. in 2012 revolved around allegations that the oil company was complicit in human rights abuses committed by the Nigerian government against its citizens, including torture and extrajudicial killings. The lawsuit was filed under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), a U.S law allowing foreign nationals to bring civil suits in U.S courts for violations of international law. However, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that there is a presumption against extraterritoriality with ATS claims - meaning it does not apply internationally unless explicitly stated otherwise - effectively dismissing Kiobel's suit as all alleged conduct took place outside United States territory. This decision significantly limited the scope of ATS, making it more difficult for foreign plaintiffs to sue corporations or individuals in US courts over actions taken abroad.
In the Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. case, Justice Breyer presented a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan. The dissent argued that the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) should apply to violations of international law occurring outside U.S territory if they significantly affect American national interests or involve actions taken by individuals present in America. They disagreed with the majority's interpretation that ATS does not apply extraterritorially at all, arguing it was inconsistent with historical evidence and would undermine the statute’s purpose: providing a judicial forum for serious violations of international law principles accepted by civilized nations. In their view, corporations could be held liable under ATS as there is no categorical rule against corporate liability in international law; rather it depends on specific offenses committed.
