Term: 2003
Docket: 03-339
Jose Francisco Sosa v. Humberto Alvarez-machain Et Al.
- Pro
03-339 SOSA v. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN Ruling below: CA 9, 331 F.3d 604 QUESTIONS PRESENTED: The Alien Tort Act ("ATA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, provides as follows: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States. " The questions presented are: 1. Whether the ATA, is simply a grant of jurisdiction, or whether, in addition to granting jurisdiction, it provides a cause of action upon which aliens may sue for torts in violation of the law of nations or treaties of the United States. 2. If the ATA provides a cause of action, whether the actions it authorizes are limited to suits for violations of jus cogens norms of international law. 3. Whether a detention that lasts less than 24 hours, results in no physical harm to the detainee, and is undertaken by a private individual under instructions from senior United States law enforcement officials, constitutes a tort in violation of the law of nations actionable under the ATA. 03-485 UNITED STATES v. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN Ruling below: CA 9, 331 F.3d 604 QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1. Whether federal law enforcement officers, and agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration in particular, have authority to enforce a federal criminal statute that applies to acts perpetrated against a United States official in a foreign country by arresting an indicted criminal suspect on probable cause in a foreign country. 2. Whether an individual arrested in a foreign country may bring an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U .S.C. 1346(b), 2671 et seq., for false arrest, notwithstanding the FTCA's exclusion of "[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country ," 28 U.S.C. 2680(k), because the arrest was planned in the United States. CERT. GRANTED: 12/1/03 Consolidated for one hour oral argument.
In the case of Jose Francisco Sosa v. Humberto Alvarez-Machain et al., 2003, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that foreign nationals could not sue in U.S courts for violations of international law unless those violations were explicitly recognized as crimes by international consensus. The case arose when a Mexican doctor, Humberto Alvarez-Machain, was abducted and brought to the United States to stand trial for his alleged involvement in torturing a DEA agent. After being acquitted, he sued his abductor, former DEA agent Jose Francisco Sosa under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which allows foreign citizens to bring lawsuits in U.S federal court for serious violations of international law. However, the Supreme Court held that Dr. Alvarez's abduction did not constitute such a violation because it was not universally accepted as illegal under customary international law at that time.
In the dissenting opinion for Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, Justice Scalia argued that federal courts should not recognize any cause of action for violations of international law unless explicitly provided by Congress. He disagreed with the majority's view that federal common law could be a source of such claims and criticized their reliance on historical practice to justify this position. According to him, even if some early cases suggested otherwise, they were insufficiently clear or consistent to establish a general rule allowing such lawsuits under federal common law. Furthermore, he contended that recognizing these claims would interfere with foreign relations and exceed judicial authority by effectively creating new laws without legislative approval.
