Alien Tort Statute (ATS)

INTRODUCTION

Determining whether Mr. Fullman has an actionable claim under the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”) and whether the Fourteenth Circuit has jurisdiction over this matter can be determined by the same answer. If Lansdale can be held liable under the ATS, the Fourteenth Circuit has jurisdiction. If suit is barred against Lansdale, due to his status as a corporation, the Fourteenth Circuit lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and, thus, the case must be dismissed.
The Supreme Court has not determined whether corporations can be held liable under the ATS, but this question has been addressed by various circuit courts with different results. This split in the circuits indicates that a universal customary international norm does not exist
The Court has since stated that the ATS provides “a cause of action for [a] modest number of international law violations.” To discern if a modern offense also violates the law of nations, which is also known as customary international law, courts will examine whether the offense “rest[s] on a norm of international character accepted by the civilized world and defined with specificity comparable to the features of the 18th century paradigms.” Further, a customary norm should be “specific, universal, and
The Second Circuit has noted that, “customary international law has not to date recognized liability for corporations that violate its norms . . . [and] no international tribunal has ever held a corporation liable.” Conversely, the Ninth Circuit has held that corporations can be liable under the ATS. To discern if a customary international law exists the Ninth Circuit considers whether the offense in question is “limited to states and whether its application depends on the identity of the perpetrator.” In Doe v. Nestle USA, Inc, the court concluded that “ the prohibition against slavery is universal and may be asserted against the corporate defendants . . . [because] non-state actors were held liable at Nuremberg for slavery offenses.”
This issue has not been addressed by the Fourteenth Circuit; however, the very nature of the other circuits’ diverging opinions illustrates that the recognition of corporate liability is not universal and, thus, likely is not a customary international law. Nevertheless, if we bring this claim we should highlight the similarities between our case and the Ninth Circuit decision. It is well established that individuals can be held liable under the ATS for committing genocide. Thus, under the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning Lansdale could be held liable because other non-state actors have also been found liable for committing