 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2008) |
| Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 30, 2004 Decided June 29, 2004 | |
| Full case name | Jose Francisco Sosa v. Humberto Alvarez-Machain, et al. |
| Docket no. | 03-339 |
| Citations | 542 U.S. 692 (more) 124 S. Ct. 2739; 159 L. Ed. 2d 718; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4763; 72 U.S.L.W. 4660; 158 Oil & Gas Rep. 601; 2004 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 515 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | On writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. |
| Holding | |
| The Federal Tort Claims Act’s exception to waiver of sovereign immunity for claims “arising in a foreign country,” bars claims based on any injury suffered in a foreign country, regardless of where the tortious act or omission occurred. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Souter, joined by unanimous (Parts I and III); Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas (Part II); Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer (Part IV) |
| Concurrence | Scalia (in part), joined by Rehnquist, Thomas |
| Concurrence | Ginsburg (in part), joined by Breyer |
| Concurrence | Breyer (in part) |
| Laws applied | |
| Alien Tort Statute | |
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Alien Tort Statute and the Federal Tort Claims Act. Many ATS claims were filed after the Second Circuit ruling in Filártiga v. Peña-Irala created a new common law cause of action for torture under the ATS: "For purposes of civil liability, the torturer has become—like the pirate and slave trader before him—hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind."[1] The Court in Sosa does not find there is a similar cause of action for arbitrary arrest and detention. They wrote that finding new common law causes of action based on international norms would require "a substantial element of discretionary judgment", and explain that the role of common law has changed since ATS was enacted meaning the Court will "look for legislative guidance before exercising innovative authority over substantive law".[2]
The decision states some limitations on recognizing (or creating) new federal common law causes of action under the ATS : "norms of international character accepted by the civilized world and defined with a specificity comparable to the features to the features of those three 18th century paradigms we have recognized".[3][4]
- ^ Bradley, Curtis (2015). International Law in the US Legal System. Oxford University Press.
The court in Filartiga also concluded that, even though the suit involved only foreign citizens, it fell within the Article III jurisdiction of the federal courts, 'The constitutional basis for the Alien Tort Statute is the law of nations,' said the court, 'which has always been part of the federal common law' ... the court's historical assertion about federal common law is incorrect. What is referred to today as 'federal common law' is largely a product of the Supreme Court's 1938 decision in Erie Railroad v. Tompkins. Before that decision, the law of nations was treated as part of the general common law, which, unlike modern federal common law, probably did not qualify as part of the 'Laws of the United States' in Article III. It is possible to argue, of course, that the law of nations should be treated today as federal common law, and perhaps the court in Filartiga should charitably be interpreted as making that claim.
- ^ American International Law Cases: Fourth Series. Oxford University Press. 2010. p. 260. ISBN 978-0-19-975885-2.
- ^ Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004).
- ^ International Civil Litigation in United States Courts. Aspen Publishing. 2022. p. 66. ISBN 9781543847437.