Alien Tort Statute
The Alien Tort Statute — just 33 words — gives US federal courts jurisdiction over civil lawsuits brought by foreign nationals for violations of international law. Dormant for nearly two centuries, it was revived in Filártiga v. Peña-Irala (1980) to hold a Paraguayan torturer liable in US courts. A series of Supreme Court decisions have progressively narrowed its scope, but the ATS remains a significant tool for civil accountability when an international law violator is found within US jurisdiction.
Primary Text
28 U.S.C. § 1350“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. (28 U.S.C. § 1350)”
What It Means
The Alien Tort Statute was enacted as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, likely intended to address piracy and affronts to ambassadors — acts the Founders understood as violations of the law of nations. For 191 years it was essentially a dead letter. That changed in Filártiga v. Peña-Irala (1980), where the Second Circuit held that a Paraguayan official who had tortured and killed the son of a political opponent could be sued in US federal court under the ATS. The court ruled that torture violated the law of nations — not just Paraguayan law — giving the ATS transnational reach that transformed international human rights litigation.
The modern ATS framework is shaped by a series of limiting Supreme Court decisions. In Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004), the Court held that the ATS grants jurisdiction but not a cause of action — plaintiffs must identify a specific, definite, and universally recognized international law norm. In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (2013), the Court applied the presumption against extraterritoriality, holding that the ATS does not automatically apply to conduct occurring entirely on foreign soil. In Jesner v. Arab Bank (2018), the Court held that foreign corporations cannot be ATS defendants. In Nestlé USA v. Doe (2021), the Court further restricted suits against US corporations for overseas conduct.
Despite these restrictions, the ATS remains significant. Claims can still be brought against individuals — US or foreign nationals — for conduct that 'touches and concerns' the US with sufficient force. The statute has been used to hold human rights violators liable in US courts when they are found within US jurisdiction. It represents the most powerful domestic mechanism for civil accountability for international law violations, including torture, genocide, and extrajudicial killing. The gap between its theoretical scope and its Supreme Court-narrowed reach reflects the broader tension between individual accountability and judicial restraint in international human rights law.
Real-World Application
Filártiga v. Peña-Irala (2d Cir. 1980) was the foundational case: Joel Filártiga, a Paraguayan dissident, sued Americo Peña-Irala in New York for the torture-murder of his son by Paraguayan police. The Second Circuit ruled for Filártiga, establishing that 'official torture is now prohibited by the law of nations.' The case launched decades of ATS human rights litigation and inspired the creation of academic human rights centers and international human rights legal practices. Despite the Supreme Court's subsequent narrowing, Filártiga remains one of the most consequential US court decisions in international human rights history.
Related Laws
Stay Ahead of the Law
Pro members get weekly briefings on new laws, executive orders, and international legal developments — decoded in plain English, no spin.
Join Pro — Weekly Briefs