Alien Tort Statute: Who Can Sue, Conduct, and Filing

The Alien Tort Statute is a federal law, enacted in 1789, that lets non-U.S. citizens sue in federal district court for injuries caused by violations of international law or a U.S. treaty. It sits at 28 U.S.C. § 1350.¹ The text is short. The doctrine that has grown around it is not, and a series of Supreme Court decisions now controls who can sue, who can be sued, what conduct counts, and where that conduct must have happened.

Who Can Sue

The statute is limited to “aliens.” That covers any person who is not a U.S. citizen or national, including foreign nationals abroad, visitors on tourist or work visas, undocumented people in the United States, and entities formed under foreign law.¹

U.S. citizens cannot use it. If you are American and want to sue over torture or extrajudicial killing, the Torture Victim Protection Act is the route: it uses the word “individual” and is open to citizens and noncitizens alike.¹

Who Can Be Sued

Three Supreme Court decisions have drawn hard lines around defendants.

Foreign Corporations

Foreign corporations are out. In Jesner v. Arab Bank (2018), the Court held that foreign corporations cannot be defendants in ATS suits, reasoning that extending liability abroad raises foreign-policy questions for Congress to decide.²

Domestic Corporations

Suing a U.S. corporation is possible in theory and difficult in practice. In Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe (2021), the Court ruled that general corporate activity on U.S. soil, such as operational decisions made at a headquarters, is not enough. Plaintiffs must show that specific conduct tied to the alleged violation occurred in the United States.³ Most corporate ATS cases fail at that step.

Individuals and Foreign Officials

Individual defendants are the most viable targets, and successful ATS cases have often been brought against former military commanders, government officials, or private individuals directly involved in the abuses. Foreign officials can raise immunity, though. In Samantar v. Yousuf (2010), the Court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not shield individual officials sued in their personal capacity; instead, common-law sovereign immunity principles apply, and courts evaluate them case by case.⁴

Foreign states themselves, along with their agencies and political subdivisions, are immune. The FSIA is the sole basis for jurisdiction over a foreign state, and the ATS cannot override it.

What Conduct Qualifies

The ATS covers torts “committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” That phrase reads broadly. The Supreme Court has read it narrowly.¹

A point that trips people up: the statute is jurisdictional. It gives federal courts authority to hear certain cases; it does not itself create a right to sue. In Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004), the Court explained that the First Congress expected common law to supply the causes of action for a small number of well-established international violations. Courts today may recognize new claims, but only if the underlying norm is as specific, universally accepted, and obligatory as the 18th-century violations the drafters had in mind.⁵

The three original violations were piracy, interference with ambassadors’ rights, and violations of safe conducts. Modern courts have extended the list to include torture, extrajudicial killing, and genocide, each backed by strong international consensus. A violation that is disputed among nations, or grounded only in regional custom, will not clear the bar.⁵

Aiding and Abetting

You do not have to be the direct perpetrator to face an ATS claim. Courts have recognized aiding-and-abetting liability, generally defined as knowingly providing practical assistance that substantially contributes to the violation. The required mental state is unsettled. Some circuits ask whether the defendant knew their assistance would facilitate abuses; others require purpose.

The Supreme Court may resolve this soon. It granted review in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe in January 2026, with oral argument scheduled for April 28, 2026. The case asks whether the ATS and the TVPA allow judicially implied causes of action for aiding and abetting at all.⁶ A ruling against that liability would sharply narrow the statute’s reach, particularly against corporate defendants.

Where the Conduct Must Have Happened

Even with a qualifying plaintiff, a valid defendant, and a recognized international-law violation, the case fails if the relevant conduct occurred entirely overseas. In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (2013), the Court applied the presumption against extraterritoriality and held that claims must “touch and concern the territory of the United States” with “sufficient force” to overcome that presumption.⁷ The Court did not define “sufficient force,” leaving that to lower courts.

Post-Kiobel decisions give a sense of what domestic conduct passes. One court found sufficient U.S. ties where a defendant designed and manufactured surveillance technology in California, provided ongoing technical support from California, and did so knowing the technology would facilitate human rights abuses abroad. Another pointed to a contract for interrogation services negotiated and paid for in the United States, employees hired and trained domestically, and U.S.-based managers who knew of detainee abuse but did nothing. A corporate headquarters and routine business decisions are not enough on their own; the domestic conduct has to connect directly to the alleged violation.³

How Long You Have to File

The statute contains no limitations period. Federal courts have borrowed the 10-year period from the Torture Victim Protection Act, reasoning that the two statutes share the same human-rights aims and enforcement mechanism.¹ The clock starts when the cause of action arises, meaning when the injury occurs or, in some circumstances, when the plaintiff could reasonably have discovered it. Ten years sounds long. Building an evidentiary record of abuses that occurred abroad under hostile governments can consume much of it. Miss the deadline and the case is dismissed regardless of its merits.

ATS Compared to the Torture Victim Protection Act

The TVPA was enacted in 1991 and is codified as a note to the same section that contains the ATS. The two statutes overlap but differ in ways that matter to a prospective plaintiff.

Who can sue. The ATS is limited to aliens. The TVPA uses “individual,” so citizens and foreign nationals alike may file.¹
What conduct is covered. The ATS reaches any violation of a well-established international norm. The TVPA is limited to torture and extrajudicial killing.
Who can be sued. The TVPA applies only to individuals acting under color of foreign law, not to private actors or corporations.
Exhaustion of remedies. The TVPA requires plaintiffs to exhaust adequate and available remedies in the country where the abuse occurred. The ATS carries no such requirement on its face.¹

The exhaustion issue is a practical trap. Some courts have held that when a claim involves torture or extrajudicial killing, the TVPA’s exhaustion requirement applies even if the plaintiff pleads it under the ATS, because Congress meant the TVPA to be the primary vehicle for those claims. Other courts let plaintiffs choose. If your case involves torture or killing, assume you may need to show that remedies in the country where the abuse occurred were either pursued or genuinely unavailable.

What You Can Recover

ATS plaintiffs can seek both compensatory and punitive damages. Compensatory damages cover actual losses: physical injuries, medical costs, lost income, psychological harm. Punitive damages are meant to express societal condemnation and are typically scaled to the defendant’s wealth. Historical judgments have been very large on paper.

Collection is the harder problem. Most ATS defendants are former foreign officials or private individuals with few reachable assets in the United States. Winning a judgment and actually recovering money are different things. Some cases settle for smaller but real amounts when defendants have assets within reach. Go in with realistic expectations about the gap between the number a court writes down and the number that reaches you.

How to File a Claim

Drafting the Complaint

The complaint is the document that starts the lawsuit. A standard civil complaint form is available from the United States Courts website and provides the basic structure.⁸ It requires full names and addresses for plaintiff and defendant. In the jurisdiction section, cite 28 U.S.C. § 1350. The body should lay out the facts chronologically: what happened, where, when, who was responsible, and which international-law norm was violated. It also needs to establish the U.S. territorial connection required under Kiobel.

Filing with the Court

The completed complaint goes to the clerk’s office of the appropriate U.S. district court. Attorneys typically file electronically through the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system.⁹ Self-represented plaintiffs may or may not have electronic access depending on the local court; many courts still require pro se filers to submit paper copies.¹⁰

The statutory filing fee for a civil case in federal district court is $350, and administrative fees set by the Judicial Conference generally bring the total higher.¹¹ If you cannot afford the fee, you can ask the court to let you proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, by filing an affidavit showing your finances.¹²

Serving the Defendant

Once the court issues a summons, you are responsible for delivering copies of the summons and complaint to the defendant. Service is where ATS cases get complicated, because many defendants live abroad. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) governs foreign service and prioritizes internationally agreed methods such as those under the Hague Service Convention. If no international agreement applies, service can proceed through the foreign country’s own legal procedures, by letter rogatory, or by personal delivery where the local law does not prohibit it.¹³ International service can take months and often requires translation and coordination with foreign authorities.

Once properly served, a defendant inside the United States has 21 days to respond.¹⁴ Defendants served abroad under Rule 4(f) generally have 90 days.

Forum Non Conveniens

Clearing every jurisdictional hurdle still does not guarantee your case stays in federal court. A defendant can move to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, arguing that a foreign court is a more convenient and appropriate forum. The defendant must identify an adequate alternative forum and persuade the court that the private factors (access to evidence, availability of witnesses) and public factors (court congestion, local interest in local controversies) favor dismissal.

Courts give less deference to a foreign plaintiff’s choice of a U.S. forum than to an American plaintiff’s. Dismissal is not automatic, though. Courts weigh the United States’ interest in providing a forum for human rights claims, and a foreign court that is corrupt, hostile to the plaintiff, or unable to provide a meaningful remedy may not qualify as adequate. The defendant carries the burden, and if it is not met, the plaintiff’s choice of forum holds.

1
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1350 – Aliens Action for Tort
2
Justia. Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 584 US 734 (2018)
3
Legal Information Institute. Nestle USA, Inc. v. Doe
4
Justia. Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 US 305 (2010)
5
Justia. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 US 692 (2004)
6
Legal Information Institute. Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I
7
Justia. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 US 108 (2013)
8
United States Courts. Complaint for a Civil Case
9
United States Courts. Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF)
10
Federal Judicial Center. Federal Courts Electronic Filing by Pro Se Litigants
11
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1914 – District Court Filing and Miscellaneous Fees
12
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1915 – Proceedings in Forma Pauperis
13
Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4 – Summons
14
Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12