Rio Tinto v. Sarei, et al.

1. Whether U.S. courts should recognize a federal common law claim under the ATS arising from conduct occuring entirely within the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign, especially where the claim addresses the foreign sovereign's own conduct on its own soil toward its own citizens.

2. Whether U.S. courts should recognize a federal common law claim under the ATS based on aiding-and-abetting liability, even absent concrete factual allegations establishing that the purpose of the defendant's condct was to advance the principal actor's violations of international law. 

3. Whether a plaintiff asserting a federal common law claim under the ATS addressed to conduct occurring entirely within the jurisdicion of a foreign sovereign must seek to exhaust available remedies in the courts of that sovereign before filing suit in the United States, as international and domestic law require. 

4. Whether federal common law claims asserted under the ATS for violations of international human rights law norms may be brought against corporate entities. 

NCLC urged the U.S. Supreme Court to agree to hear this case if the Court reverses judgment in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, in order to clarify a host of unresolved questions regarding the scope of liability under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).  In this case, residents of a Papua New Guinea island raised ATS claims against Rio Tinto for alleged human rights violations, racial discrimination, and environmental damage. In its brief, NCLC explained that ATS litigation is imposing extremely substantial, and wholly unjustified, burdens on legitimate business conduct. Key drivers of unjustified ATS litigation inclued unresolved questions regarding aiding and abetting liability; the extraterritorial reach of the ATS; and the traditional requirment that non-US plaintiffs exhaust remedies in the country in which the claim arises before bring suit in the U.S.

This case is not yet decided.  

Amicus brief filed 12/28/11.