Alvarez, a Mexican physician, was wanted by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency for the torture and murder of one of its agents in Mexico in 1985. When Mexico would not extradite Alvarez, the agency employed Sosa to kidnap Alvarez from his home and fly him by private plane to Texas, where he was arrested by federal officers. Alvarez was tried and acquitted in a U.S. court. After the acquittal, Alvarez brought this civil suit in U.S. District Court against Sosa for damages under the U.S. Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The ATS reads: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." 28 U.S.C. §1350. Alvarez sued on the theory that the abduction and arrest were a tort committed in violation of customary international law. Alvarez won a judgment against Sosa in District Court, and it was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals. Sosa appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
1. What were the three specific offenses mentioned by Blackstone that were recognized as violations of customary international law at the time the ATS was enacted?
2. Is the Court willing to expand the ATS beyond these original three offenses? According to Justice Souter, what types of torts would give rise to jurisdiction under the ATS?
3. Do you feel that this decision grants too much or too little power to the federal courts to hear tort claims occurring outside the country?
4. What foreign policy implications are involved in a U.S. court hearing a case under the ATS?
5. In what way did the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Kiobel further limit the application of customary international law?