This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Petitioners, petitioners allege that the bank knowingly and purposefully financed terrorism with the expectation that it would make attacks more successful and lucrative, which they claim violates the law.
According to Petitioners (Jeffrey L. Fisher), according to Petitioners (Jeffrey L. Fisher), petitioners argue that the ATS should be interpreted using ordinary rules of statutory construction, as clarified in Kiobel.
The respondent bank argued that the case should have been brought in Jordan, a position the district court rejected and the bank did not appeal.
The United States, as amicus, questioned whether the claims have a sufficient connection to the United States to proceed under the ATS.
The Court noted that the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, which the United States has ratified, obliges states to enable legal entities in their territory to be held liable.
According to Mr. Clement, international law distinguishes between “persons” (who bear duties) and legal entities, which are addressed separately.
- [1] 7f9612e95d002d7009bc-r1-bb45a2d9736f5610.pdf, p. 23
- [2] 7f9612e95d002d7009bc-r1-bb45a2d9736f5610.pdf, p. 4
- [3] 7f9612e95d002d7009bc-r1-bb45a2d9736f5610.pdf, p. 25
- [4] 7f9612e95d002d7009bc-r1-bb45a2d9736f5610.pdf, p. 28
- [5] 7f9612e95d002d7009bc-r1-bb45a2d9736f5610.pdf, p. 45
- [6] 7f9612e95d002d7009bc-r1-bb45a2d9736f5610.pdf, p. 48
Background and question before the Court
According to Paul D. Clement, the case arises from a suit by Israeli nationals against a Jordan‑chartered corporation for injuries suffered in Israel and the adjoining territories.
According to Justice Breyer, a central legal question is whether the ATS permits liability against corporations for alleged financing of terrorism under international law.
According to Justice Ginsburg, another issue is whether extraterritoriality bars the ATS claim, i.e., whether the case should be heard in the foreign forum where the conduct occurred.
What each side argues
Petitioners (Jeffrey L. Fisher)
According to Petitioners (Jeffrey L. Fisher), according to Petitioners (Jeffrey L. Fisher), petitioners contend that the ATS should be read according to ordinary statutory construction principles.
According to Jeffrey L. Fisher, petitioners raise questions about whether corporate liability should be based on conduct or enforcement, referencing Justice Kennedy’s query.
Respondent (Arab Bank, PLC)
The bank argued that the case should have been filed in Jordan, a position the district court rejected and the bank did not appeal.
According to Paul D. Clement, Clement emphasized that there is no universal obligatory norm imposing direct obligations on corporations under international law.
United States (Amicus Curiae)
The United States argued that the claims may lack a sufficient connection to the United States to proceed under the ATS.
According to former counter-terrorism officials, according to former counter‑terrorism officials, Congress knew aliens already had a cause of action under the ATS.
The Solicitor General’s brief cited the Little Tucker Act as providing a clear remedial structure for ATS claims, free of extraterritoriality concerns.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Sotomayor asked, “How about Daimler?”
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg inquired about an exhaustion requirement and extraterritoriality.
Justice Kagan asked whether a norm is merely a standard of conduct without enforcement mechanisms.
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer questioned whether international law extends liability to private actors such as corporations.
Justice Ginsburg asked for examples of jurisdictions that distinguish between individuals and corporations for liability under the law of nations.
Justice Kagan asked whether there is a grievance regarding corporate versus individual liability.
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito questioned whether victims have other avenues to sue the American corporation under federal law.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts announced that the case was submitted.
- [1] 7f9612e95d002d7009bc-r1-bb45a2d9736f5610.pdf, p. 6
- [2] 7f9612e95d002d7009bc-r1-bb45a2d9736f5610.pdf, p. 24
- [3] 7f9612e95d002d7009bc-r1-bb45a2d9736f5610.pdf, p. 27
- [4] 7f9612e95d002d7009bc-r1-bb45a2d9736f5610.pdf, p. 44
- [5] 7f9612e95d002d7009bc-r1-bb45a2d9736f5610.pdf, p. 49
- [6] 7f9612e95d002d7009bc-r1-bb45a2d9736f5610.pdf, p. 62
- [7] 7f9612e95d002d7009bc-r1-bb45a2d9736f5610.pdf, p. 65
- [8] 7f9612e95d002d7009bc-r1-bb45a2d9736f5610.pdf, p. 74
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Justice Breyer, the case tests the scope of the Alien Tort Statute, particularly whether it can be used to hold foreign corporations liable for alleged terrorism financing.
According to Justice Ginsburg, the dispute over extraterritoriality raises questions about where plaintiffs must bring claims involving conduct that occurred abroad.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 7f9612e95d002d7009bc-r1-bb45a2d9736f5610.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 26, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.