Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. | |
---|---|
Argued February 28, 2012 Reargued October 1, 2012 Decided April 17, 2013 | |
Full case name | Kiobel, Individually and on behalf of her late husband Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. et al. |
Docket no. | 10-1491 |
Citations | 569 U.S. 108 (more) 133 S. Ct. 1659; 185 L. Ed. 2d 671; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 3159; 81 U.S.L.W. 4241 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Reargument | Reargument |
Case history | |
Prior | Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 456 F. Supp. 2d 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); affirmed in part, reversed in part, 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010); rehearing en banc denied, 642 F.3d 379 (2d Cir. 2011); certiorari granted, 565 U.S. 961 (2010). |
Holding | |
The presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the Alien Tort Statute. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito |
Concurrence | Kennedy |
Concurrence | Alito, joined by Thomas |
Concurrence | Breyer (in judgment), joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan |
Laws applied | |
Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 |
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court found that the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act. According to the Court's majority opinion, "it would reach too far to say that mere corporate presence suffices" to displace the presumption against extraterritoriality when all the alleged wrongful conduct takes place outside the United States.[1]
The Court did not rule out the possibility of corporate liability if the presumption against extraterritoriality could be overcome by acts that sufficiently "touch and concern" the United States. Lower court decisions were divided.[2] After the Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC ruled out an ATS cause of action against foreign corporate defendants, the significance of the "touch and concern" test remains unclear.[3]
Kiobel is considered a 'foreign cubed' case in which foreign plaintiffs made a claim against a foreign company for human rights violations overseas.[4]