[1] Following these events, they brought suit in U.S. courts against Arab Bank, a major financial institution in the Middle East with its headquarters in Amman, Jordan and over 600 branches around the world.

[3] The district court dismissed the case based on the Second Circuit's decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. that corporations cannot be sued under the Alien Tort Statute.

"[7] The Articles of Confederation did not grant the central government the authority to provide remedies to foreign citizens, which at that time caused substantial tensions in foreign-relations.

[10] In a landmark decision, the Second Circuit found that torture did qualify as a violation of the law of nations and therefore U.S. courts had jurisdiction to decide the case under the Alien Tort Statute.

[16] Many legal scholars agree that the Supreme Court's decisions in both Sosa and Kiobel placed significant limitations on the scope of the Alien Tort Statute—a trend that continued with Jesner.

[17] The majority's reasoning was driven in large part by separation of powers concerns, noting that the political branches traditionally have responsibility over foreign affairs.

[18] Kennedy cited the amicus brief Jordan filed with the court as evidence of increased diplomatic tensions, which the First Congress sought to avoid through the creation of the Alien Tort Statute.

[1] Jordan, where Arab Bank is headquartered, characterized the Jesner case as a "grave affront" to its sovereignty that could "undermine its cooperation with the United States.

[1][20] Justice Alito's concurring opinion emphasized the Alien Tort Statute's objective of "avoiding diplomatic strife" and urged the court to reject claims, such as those brought against foreign corporate defendants, that would not advance this congressional purpose.

[1][21][22] Justice Gorsuch's concurring opinion provided two reasons in support of the court's central holding that foreign corporations cannot be defendants under the Alien Tort Statute.

First, Gorsuch argued that "separation-of-powers principles dictate that courts should never recognize new causes of action under the ATS," and second, that the statute requires a domestic defendant, whether a natural person or corporation.

[1][21] The Court's Jesner decision has led to a debate about how useful the Alien Tort Statute can be as a tool for civil human rights litigation going forward.