The U.S. Supreme Court justices are still deeply divided over whether foreign nationals can sue corporations in U.S. courts for supporting human rights violations abroad, as was evident during oral argument Oct. 11 (Jesner v. Arab Bank PLC, U.S., No. 16-499, argued 10/11/17).

The court set out to answer the vexing question of “corporate liability” in this context in 2011, but ultimately ducked the issue.

…

That’s not a line the statute itself makes, Jeffrey Fisher, of Stanford Law School, told the justices. Fisher represented the plaintiffs suing the Jordanian bank.

The statute is careful to specify the particular plaintiffs that can bring suits—”aliens”—but doesn’t say anything about the proper defendants, Fisher said.

Therefore, the court should read in the traditional presumption of corporate liability, he said.

…

The ATS only requires that the act—torture, slavery, terrorism—be a violation of international law, Fisher explained. But the way that violation is remedied—by individual liability only or also by corporate liability—is based on U.S. law, he added.

…

And if you think that Jordan will be mad at holding its bank liable for terrorist support, imagine how Israel will feel if the U.S. allows its banking system to be used by foreign banks to support terror, Fisher said.