abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

30 Jun 2021

Author:
Beth Van Schaack, Stanford Law School, on Just Security

Nestlé & Cargill v. Doe: What’s Not in the Supreme Court’s Opinions

Bill Dodge has provided a succinct summary and analysis of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) in Nestlé & Cargill v. Doe...But what the Court ultimately did not rule on – the subject of this post – is almost as impactful as what it did decide.

As Bill explains, the Court’s holding (contained in Parts I and II of Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion) reversed the Ninth Circuit on extraterritoriality and remanded the case to the district court, where the plaintiffs will now have to move for leave to amend their complaint. In so holding, the Court’s majority re-worked the extraterritoriality test (more explicitly abandoning Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum’s touch-and-concern test and adopting RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community’s focus test), and concluded that the facts alleged as to the companies’ conduct all involved domestic “general corporate activity,” which they held was not actionable under the ATS...

Beyond the discussion between Justices Thomas and Sotomayor on the wisdom of Sosa, the Court declined to issue a ruling on, or is relatively quiet about, three important issues that were either the basis of the grant of certiorari or received significant airtime in oral argument: the amenability of corporations to suit under the ATS, the cognizability and scope of aiding and abetting liability under the ATS, and the strength of anti-slavery/anti-human trafficking norms under the law of nations. The remainder of this article will discuss the significance of the Court avoiding each of these topics in turn...

Timeline

Privacy information

This site uses cookies and other web storage technologies. You can set your privacy choices below. Changes will take effect immediately.

For more information on our use of web storage, please refer to our Data Usage and Cookies Policy

Strictly necessary storage

ON
OFF

Necessary storage enables core site functionality. This site cannot function without it, so it can only be disabled by changing settings in your browser.

Analytics cookie

ON
OFF

When you access our website we use Google Analytics to collect information on your visit. Accepting this cookie will allow us to understand more details about your journey, and improve how we surface information. All analytics information is anonymous and we do not use it to identify you. Google provides a Google Analytics opt-out add on for all popular browsers.

Promotional cookies

ON
OFF

We share news and updates on business and human rights through third party platforms, including social media and search engines. These cookies help us to understand the performance of these promotions.

Your privacy choices for this site

This site uses cookies and other web storage technologies to enhance your experience beyond necessary core functionality.