The Alien Tort Claims Act: What's At Stake

For the past quarter century, the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) has enabled victims of gross human rights abuses, such as torture, genocide, summary execution, and disappearances, to obtain relief in U.S. courts where normal legal requirements are satisfied. Adopted in 1789 as part of the original Judiciary Act, ATCA grants Federal courts jurisdiction over cases involving violations of the “law of nations” – customary international law.

Since the decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the Filartiga case in 1980, U.S. courts have consistently held that ATCA permits victims, or their relatives, to seek damages for acts that violate international law. They have interpreted the law rigorously – separating cases in which those seeking relief can prove such violations from others in which the claims do not meet ATCA’s high standards. To date, nineteen perpetrators have been sued successfully – showing that ATCA has not prompted “runaway” litigation, while it has permitted deserving parties to obtain a measure of justice.

ATCA has come to be an important aspect of U.S. leadership in the struggle to bring to justice those who have violated core human rights, and who otherwise most likely would escape any accountability for their actions. By reaching those who are found in the United States, ATCA represents one way to enforce international human rights law.

But that 25-year legacy is now threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, in which the use of ATCA as a human rights instrument has come under direct challenge. Both sides have submitted their legal briefs, and the Court will hear arguments on March 30 – with a decision likely by June.

The current Department of Justice is leading the attack on ATCA. Reversing the positions of previous Administrations, and at odds with every court holding to date, Justice now argues that the statute does not permit such human rights cases. This position, joined by some in the business community, is both legally incorrect and would halt years of progress on behalf of victims of some of the worst types of human rights abuses. Human Rights First has joined other organizations and legal scholars in responding to the specious legal and policy arguments against the statute.

Since 1978, Human Rights First has promoted a diverse set of policies and approaches with a common goal: helping bring justice and relief to victims of human rights violations in the United States and abroad. ATCA and the companion Torture Victim Protection Act afford one important way to promote greater accountability for gross violations of human rights – while also offering the potential to deter future abuses, and to keep the United States from becoming a safe harbor for those responsible. Human Rights First rejects efforts to undermine use of ATCA and create a broad zone of immunity – non-accountability – for terrible human rights violations. U.S. leadership in advancing human rights and the rule of law is at stake.