“The canon of statutory interpretation known as the presumption against extraterritorial application...reflects the presumption that United States law governs domestically but does not rule the world.” —Roberts, Chief Justice 

Facts: Petitioners were residents of Ogoniland, an area of the country of Nigeria. The respondents are Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, incorporated in the Netherlands, Shell Transport and Trading Company, p.l.c., incorporated in England, and their joint subsidiary Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, Ltd. (SPDC), which is incorporated in Nigeria and engages in oil exploration and production in Ogoniland. These multinational corporations conduct business globally, including in the United States. The petitioners were granted political asylum by the United States and are now residents. They filed a complaint in U.S. district court against the respondents seeking damages and other remedies. The petitioners’ complaint alleges that when they were in Ogoniland they protested SPDC’s environmental practices. The petitioners allege that the respondents enlisted the Nigerian government to violently suppress the environmental demonstrations and that the Nigerian military and police attacked Ogoni villages, beating, raping, and killing residents and looting and destroying property. Petitioners allege that the respondents aided and abetted these atrocities by providing Nigerian forces with compensation, transportation, and supplies, and allowing the Nigerian military to use respondents’ property as a staging ground for the attacks. In their complaint, the petitioners asserted that the United States has jurisdiction to hear the case under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which permits aliens to bring lawsuits in federal court. In the past, the ATS has been applied primarily to permit aliens in the United States to sue in federal court for violations of laws committed within the United States. In this case, the petitioners alleged that the respondents committed crimes against humanity, torture, and cruel treatment, and should be subject to jurisdiction in U.S. court because of the ATS. The U.S. district court dismissed part of the case and the U.S. court of appeals dismissed the entire case. The petitioners appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted review. 

Issue: Does the Alien Tort Statute permit U.S. federal courts to decide issues regarding conduct that occurred in another country? 

Language of the U.S. Supreme Court: The canon of statutory interpretation known as the presumption against extraterritorial application... reflects the presumption that United States law governs domestically but does not rule the world. There is no indication that the ATS was passed to make the United States a uniquely hospitable forum for the enforcement of international norms. Indeed, the parties offer no evidence that any nation, meek or mighty, presumed to do such a thing. On these facts, all the relevant conduct took place outside the United States. And even where the claims touch and concern the territory of the United States, they must do so with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritorial application. Corporations are often present in many countries, and it would reach too far to say that mere corporate presence suffices. 

Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court held that the petitioner’s case seeking relief for humanitarian violations that occurred outside the United States is barred. 

Ethics Questions: Why did the petitioners sue in U.S. district court? Why do you think that they did not pursue their case in Nigeria? Does the United States owe a duty to enforce humanitarian laws worldwide? Should the United States bar corporations from doing business in the United States if those corporations are violating humanitarian laws in other countries?