SOSA v. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN - Legal Information Institute

Cite as: 542 U. S. ____ (2004) 17Opinion of the Courtingly. The idea that Congress would have intended anysuch jurisdictional variety is too implausible to drive theanalysis to the point of grafting even a selective headquartersexception onto the foreign country exception itself.We therefore hold that the FTCA’s foreign country exceptionbars all claims based on any injury suffered in aforeign country, regardless of where the tortious act oromission occurred.IIIAlvarez has also brought an action under the ATSagainst petitioner, Sosa, who argues (as does the UnitedStates supporting him) that there is no relief under theATS because the statute does no more than vest federalcourts with jurisdiction, neither creating nor authorizingthe courts to recognize any particular right of action withoutfurther congressional action. Although we agree thestatute is in terms only jurisdictional, we think that at thetime of enactment the jurisdiction enabled federal courtsto hear claims in a very limited category defined by thelaw of nations and recognized at common law. We do notbelieve, however, that the limited, implicit sanction toentertain the handful of international law cum commonlaw claims understood in 1789 should be taken as authorityto recognize the right of action asserted by Alvarezhere.AJudge Friendly called the ATS a “legal Lohengrin,” IITv. Vencap, Ltd., 519 F. 2d 1001, 1015 (CA2 1975); “no oneseems to know whence it came,” ibid., and for over 170years after its enactment it provided jurisdiction in onlyone case. The first Congress passed it as part of the JudiciaryAct of 1789, in providing that the new federal districtcourts “shall also have cognizance, concurrent with thecourts of the several States, or the circuit courts, as the