Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain
| Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain | |
|---|---|
| Argued March 30, 2004 Decided June 29, 2004 | |
| Full case name | Jose Francisco Sosa v. Humberto Alvarez-Machain, et al. |
| Docket no. | 03-339 |
| Citations | 542 U.S. 692 (more) 124 S. Ct. 2739; 159 L. Ed. 2d 718; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4763; 72 U.S.L.W. 4660; 158 Oil & Gas Rep. 601; 2004 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 515 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | On writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. |
| Holding | |
| The Federal Tort Claims Act's exception to waiver of sovereign immunity for claims "arising in a foreign country" bars claims based on any injury suffered in a foreign country, regardless of where the tortious act or omission occurred. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Souter, joined by unanimous (Parts I and III); Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas (Part II); Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer (Part IV) |
| Concurrence | Scalia (in part), joined by Rehnquist, Thomas |
| Concurrence | Ginsburg (in part), joined by Breyer |
| Concurrence | Breyer (in part) |
| Laws applied | |
| Alien Tort Statute | |
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Alien Tort Statute and the Federal Tort Claims Act. Many ATS claims were filed after the Second Circuit ruling in Filártiga v. Peña-Irala created a new common law cause of action for torture under the ATS: "For purposes of civil liability, the torturer has become—like the pirate and slave trader before him—hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind." The Court in Sosa does not find there is a similar cause of action for arbitrary arrest and detention. They wrote that finding new common law causes of action based on international norms would require "a substantial element of discretionary judgment", and explain that the role of common law has changed since ATS was enacted meaning the Court will "look for legislative guidance before exercising innovative authority over substantive law".
The decision states some limitations on recognizing (or creating) new federal common law causes of action under the ATS: "norms of international character accepted by the civilized world and defined with a specificity comparable to the features of those three 18th century paradigms we have recognized".