Corporate Accountability

RELEASE: Supreme Court Leaves Some Corporations Answerable to Alien Tort Statute

WASHINGTON – Following the Supreme Court’s ruling today in Nestlé USA, Inc. v. John Doe I, Constitutional Accountability Center President Elizabeth Wydra issued the following reaction:

Today, the Supreme Court held that two American corporations, Nestle USA and Cargill, that allegedly contributed to the perpetration of child slavery in the Ivory Coast could not be sued in U.S. court because most of the challenged conduct occurred abroad. This decision is disappointing, particularly for the respondents, who had been forced as children to work on cocoa plantations.

But the Court refrained from striking an even larger blow: the Court initially agreed to hear these cases to consider whether the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which allows federal district courts to hear suits for torts “committed in violation of the law of nations,” exempts all corporations from suit.

Rather than decide that question and potentially foreclose future suits like this one, the Court resolved these cases on the ground that a “mere corporate presence” in the United States is insufficient to open the door to federal court.

As Justice Gorsuch pointed out in his concurring opinion, which echoed CAC’s amicus brief in support of the respondents, “That is a good thing: The notion that corporations are immune from suit under the ATS cannot be reconciled with the statutory text and original understanding,” and the Court properly declined to go down that road. Justice Alito also echoed CAC’s amicus brief in his dissenting opinion when he acknowledged that “[c]orporate status does not justify special immunity.”

Although today’s decision is disappointing and will have unfortunate repercussions for the victims in this case and beyond, we remain hopeful that the Court will continue to recognize that the ATS, in accordance with its text and Congress’s plan in passing it, allows federal district courts to hear suits against American corporations for violations of international law.

#

Resources:

CAC case page in Nestlé USA, Inc. v. John Doe I; Cargill, Inc. v. John Doe I: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/nestle-v-doecargill-v-doe/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
April 24, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Considers Constitutionality of FCC Enforcement Process

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Federal Communications...
By: Joshua Blecher-Cohen, Smita Ghosh
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Supreme Court

Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T and Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission

In Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T and Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission, the Supreme Court is considering whether the FCC’s two-stage civil-enforcement process violates the Seventh Amendment.
Corporate Accountability
January 15, 2026

January Newsletter: CAC Keeps Up the Fight for Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Millennia Housing Management v. Department of Housing and Urban Development

In Millennia Housing Management v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is considering a challenge to the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s authority to...
Corporate Accountability
July 2, 2025

Moneyed Interests Still Prevail at the Supreme Court (2024-2025 Term)

The Court Continues to Favor Corporations over Workers, Consumers, and the Environment.
By: Brian R. Frazelle, Ana Builes
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Novartis v. Secretary United States Department of Health and Human Services

In Novartis v. Secretary United States Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit considered whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program is an unconstitutional...