SOSA VS.

ALVAREZ-MACHAIN  Marbois incident of May 1784: French adventurer, Longchamps, verbally and
Souter [June 29, 2004] physically assaulted the Secretary of the French Legion in Philadelphia.
o Congress called for state legislation addressing such matters.
 1985: An agent of the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) was captured in o The Framers responded by vesting the Supreme Court with original
Mexico and murdered. jurisdiction over “all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public
 1990: A federal grand jury indicted Alvarez-Machain (Alvarez) for torture and ministers and Consuls”
murder of said DEA agent. DEA was not able to convince Mexico to extradite o However, there is no record of congressional discussion about
Alvarez, so they hired Mexican nationals, including petitioner Jose Francisco private actions that might be subject to the jurisdictional provision, or
Sosa, to abduct him and bring him to US. about any need for further legislation to create private remedies.
 Once in American custody, Alvarez moved to dismiss the indictment on the
ground that his seizure was “outrageous governmental conduct” and violated
the extradition treaty between Mexico and US.
o The District Court granted the dismissal, and the Ninth Circuit
affirmed. However, the SC reversed, holding that the fact of Alvarez’s
forcible seizure did not affect the jurisdiction of a federal court.
o Case was tried in 1992, and the District Court acquitted Alvarez.
 1993: After returning to Mexico, Alvarez began the present civil action.
He sued the Mexican nationals and sought for damages under the
Federal Torts Claims Act (alleging false arrest) and the Alien Tort Statute
(ATS) for violation of the law of nations.
 The District Court granted the Government’s Motion to dismiss the FTCA
claim, but awarded summary judgment and $25,000 in damages to
Alvarez on the ATS claim.
o The Ninth Circuit affirmed the ATS judgment but reversed the
dismissal of the FTCA claim. It ruled that the ATS not only provides
federal courts with subject matter jurisdiction, but also creates a
cause of action for an alleged violation of the law of nations. It relied
on the “clear and universally recognized norm prohibiting arbitrary
arrest and detention.”
 The Supreme Court granted the certiorari in these cases to clarify the scope
of FTCA and ATS. It reversed the rulings of the Ninth Circuit.

W/N Alvarez may recover under the Alien Torts Statute – NO

 Alvarez claims that ATS was not intended simply as a jurisdictional grant, but
as authority for the creation of new cause of action for torts in violation of
international law.
 Court: ATS was intended as jurisdictional in the sense of addressing the
power of the courts to entertain cases concerned with a certain subject.

History (di ko sure kung kasama):

 Law of nations comprise of 2 elements:1) general norms governing the
behavior of national states with each other; 2) body of judge-made law
regulating conduct of individuals outside domestic boundaries
 3 offenses against law of nations addressed in England: violation of safe
conducts, infringement of the rights of ambassadors, and piracy.
o Ex: An assault against an ambassador impinged upon the
sovereignty of the foreign nation and could rise to war if not
addressed. It was this narrow set of violations of law of nations that
was probably on minds of the men who drafted the ATS with its
reference to tort.