According to the Court's majority opinion, "it would reach too far to say that mere corporate presence suffices" to displace the presumption against extraterritoriality when all the alleged wrongful conduct takes place outside the United States.

[2] After the Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC ruled out an ATS cause of action against foreign corporate defendants, the significance of the "touch and concern" test remains unclear.

On September 29, 2006, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for aiding and abetting property destruction; forced exile; extrajudicial killing; and violation of the rights to life, liberty, security, and association.

The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to the remaining claims of aiding and abetting arbitrary arrest and detention; crimes against humanity; and torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

"[12] Reargument of the case occurred on October 1, 2012, with Sullivan reappearing for Shell and the United States Solicitor General Donald Verrilli now arguing as a friend to Kiobel.

[14] The Court also disregarded a 1795 opinion by Attorney General William Bradford that "there can be no doubt" of tort liability for American citizens who had been plundering inside Sierra Leone.

[16][17][18] Finally, the Court found it would be implausible to suppose that the First Congress wanted to make the United States a "uniquely hospitable forum for the enforcement of international norms.

[26] The concurrence takes issue with the majority's characterization of the ATS as "uniquely hospitable" by noting that many countries permit extraterritorial suits, citing Dutch, English, International Court of Justice, and European Commission sources.

[16] Ultimately, however, the concurrence agrees with the Court's judgment, as the mere corporate presence of a foreign defendant does not invoke a national interest in denying safe harbor to a common enemy of mankind.