No. 10-1491
W
ILSON
-E
PES
P
RINTING
C
O
.,
I
NC
.
–
(202)
789-0096
–
W
ASHINGTON
,
D.
C.
20002
I
N
T
HE
Supreme Court of the United States
————E
STHER
K
IOBEL
,
et al
.,
Petitioners
, v.R
OYAL
D
UTCH
P
ETROLEUM
C
O
.,
et al
.,
Respondents
.————
On Writ of Certiorari to theUnited States Court of Appealsfor the Second Circuit
————
BRIEF OF
AMICUS CURIAE
THE CATOINSTITUTE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
————
I
LYA
S
HAPIRO
A
NASTASIA
K
ILLIAN
C
ATO
I
NSTITUTE
1000 Mass. Ave., N.W.Washington, DC 20001(202) 842-0200ishapiro@cato.org
O
WEN
C.
P
ELL
Counsel of Record
L
INDSAY
E.
L
EONARD
S
PENCER
W
ILLIG
W
HITE
&
C
ASE
LLP1155 Ave. of the AmericasNew York, NY 10036(212) 819-8200opell@whitecase.com
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
February 3, 2012
(i)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether this Court should apply the holdingin
Grupo Mexicano de Desarollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc
., 527 U.S. 308 (1999), to the AlienTort Statute (“ATS”) so as to require federal courtsto apply the methodology that existed when theJudiciary Act of 1789 was enacted to determine theparties and claims that may be recognized as part of a tort committed in violation of the law of nations.2. Whether this Court should use the rulingbelow by Judge José Cabranes to clarify its holding in
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain
, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), tomake clear the methodology to be used in ATS casesfor determining the parties and claims cognizable intort under the law of nations, and thereby reduce theconfusion in the lower federal courts regarding thescope of ATS jurisdiction.
(iii)TABLE OF CONTENTSPageQUESTIONS PRESENTED................................ iTABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................... iiiTABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................ vINTEREST OF
AMICUS CURIAE
..................... 1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................. 1 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 4I. THE SCOPE OF JURISDICTIONCREATED BY THE ALIEN TORTSTATUTE SHOULD BE DEFINED BYTHE STANDARDS FOR RECOGNIZINGTORT VIOLATIONS UNDER THE LAWOF NATIONS IN 1789 ................................. 4 A. The Founders’ Careful Approach toFederal Jurisdiction Provides theNecessary Context for this Court’s Analysis of the ATS................................. 5B. The Judiciary Act of 1789 was PurelyJurisdictional. ......................................... 6C. The Jurisdictional Grant of the ATSMust Be Read Narrowly and Confinedby the Standards That Applied Whenthe Judiciary Act Was Enacted. ............. 7D. Under
Grupo Mexicano
, the 1789Standards for Determining the Law of Nations Must Govern. ............................. 11E. Applying the Standards Applicable tothe Judiciary Act of 1789 Does NotUndermine the ATS. ............................... 16
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, Cato Legal Briefs
333
Reads
1
Readcasts
766
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
