The Alien Tort Claims Act was passed by the First Congress to combat piracy on the high seas, but since 1980 has found new use as a weapon against human rights abuses and genocide. Around the 1990s, plaintiffs began using the ATCA against corporations, rather than individuals, and ATCA became much more controversial.
Opponents of the law, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Department of Justice, believe that the law is overly broad, misapplied, and that it could create a whole host of diplomatic horrors. Supporters contend that the ATCA is a valuable tool to combat human rights abuses.
In this context, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday in Sosa v. Alavarez-Machain that foreign nationals could use the Alien Tort Claims Act to sue other foreign defendants in U.S. civil court for violating the “norms of customary international law,” although the abuses in Sosa specifically did not meet these standards.
The decision validates a number of pending cases, but raises the bar for plaintiffs who must now prove that the defendant violated international human rights laws. In short, the court ruled that “…for the purposes of civil liability, the torturer has become
a technology job is no excuse 