Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe (19-416)

argument 19-416

Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 28m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the Alien Tort Statute and why is it relevant to this case?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument first this morning in case nineteen four sixteen, Nestle USA versus Doe and the consolidated case. Mr. Cottio.

Mr. Cottio 0:11

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The alien tort statute has been around since the earliest days of our nation, and yet this court has never accepted the type of claim that the plaintiffs bring here. The claim plaintiffs bring alleges something horrific. That locators in Mali sold them as children to Ivorian farms where overseers forced them to work. The defendants are not the locators, not the overseers, and not the farms. Instead, they are two US corporations, Nestle, USA and Cargo. The plaintiffs do not allege that these two owned or operated any farm. And they do not allege that the companies bought anything from farms that use child labour. Instead, the companies are an afterthought, a few of a hundred and one paragraphs in their complaints.

Mr. Cottio 0:58

They claim the companies made decisions in the US and that they had knowledge of child slavery. This lawsuit fails for two independent reasons. First, it's extraterritorial. You've said when a statute gives no clear indication of an extraterritorial application, it has none. Here the plaintiffs haven't alleged any domestic injury or even that they've been to the US. History in this court's cases may clear that the ATS's focus is the injury or principal wrongdoing from a tort. Here that occurred halfway across the globe. And second, the ATS is about natural persons. Jezner recognized there is no specific, universal, and obligatory international law norm of corporate liability. That fully applies to domestic corporations.

Mr. Cottio 1:45

It's not enough, as the judgment of plurality said, to show quote liability might be permissible under international law in some circumstances. Rather it must be to use Sosa's language, quote, accepted by the civilized world and defined with a specificity comparable to the features of the eighteenth century paradigm. These are some of the most fraught decisions government makes. To say Congress in seventeen eighty nine made them is to read many difficult policy choices into vague statutory text. This court has generally warned against doing that, and specifically with the ATS every single time.

John G. Roberts 2:21

Mr. Catio, um in this case, uh no foreign country has objected to the United States hailing its own citizens into its own courts. And why should we be uh cautious in terms of international relations uh in such a case? Um and what objection would foreign countries have to ensuring that uh US corporations follow customary international law.

Mr. Cottio 2:52

So Your Honor, first of all, I don't think that that's the relevant test because Nabisco, what you said was even if international friction is, quote, not necessarily the result in every case, the potential for friction militates against recognizing foreign injury claims. And I think that's true generally. And then with respect to here, I do think that there's three different impacts on foreign policy that would be uh recognized that would that would occur if you were to recognize corporate liability in this case. One is in Jezner you've talked about the surrogacy problem with the injury nation. You the the plurality said that plaintiffs can still use corporations as surrogate defendants to challenge corporate governments and said that's what was going on in Kiabel.

Mr. Cottio 3:33

Well we can

John G. Roberts 3:33

always we can always address that uh concern with uh uh addressing aiding and abetting.

Mr. Cottio 3:39

I I agree that that's one way to do this, but I think this court in Jezner recognized that uh that doing it here that if you were to recognize corporate liability you would in some circumstances get this. And in addition, the parent nation concern I think would apply just as well because it would be an end run around Jezner to permit foreign corporations like Nestle to be sued because of their domestic subs like in this case, but not others. And finally

John G. Roberts 4:07

um uh thank you, Council. Uh Justice Thomas.

Clarence Thomas 4:10

Uh thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Mr. Cottyaldi, um uh tot on a slightly different matter.