Throwback Thursday

Throwback Thursday: Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain

On June 29, 2004, two decades ago, the Supreme Court decided Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, recognizing an implied cause of action under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) for violations of human rights norms that are generally accepted and specifically defined. In this post, I look back at Sosa and discuss what has happened in ATS litigation during…

Continue Reading

Throwback Thursday: Empagran’s Complicated Legacy

Twenty years ago tomorrow, on June 14, 2004, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Stephen Breyer, interpreted the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 (FTAIA) to preclude the application of U.S. antitrust law to injuries in other countries. Empagran…

Continue Reading

Throwback Thursday: Eighty Years of Ex Parte Republic of Peru

Back in 1943, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in an admiralty case against the Ucayali, a Peruvian steamship. A Cuban company brought the in rem action in a federal district court in Louisiana alleging that the steamship violated a charter agreement by failing to carry a cargo of sugar from Peru to New York….

Continue Reading

Throwback Thursday: Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites

In the Supreme Court’s end-of-Term personal jurisdiction case, Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway (2023) (prior coverage here, here, and here), Justice Jackson wrote separately to explain why she found “particularly instructive” the Court’s prior decision in Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites (1982). Bauxites, a case about jurisdictional discovery and discovery sanctions, is…

Continue Reading

Throwback Thursday: Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California

Thirty years ago next week, the Supreme Court addressed the extraterritorial reach of U.S. antitrust laws in Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California. The Court reiterated that the Sherman Act applies to anticompetitive conduct abroad that causes substantial intended effects in the United States, but it divided sharply over the role of “international comity.” Writing…

Continue Reading

Throwback Thursday: Federal Rule 44.1

For this installment of Throwback Thursday, we are going back to the year 1966. In that year, the Supreme Court adopted important changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing class actions, amendments that have garnered substantial commentary ever since. This post addresses a less-heralded change, the introduction of Federal Rule 44.1 governing foreign…

Continue Reading

Throwback Thursday: Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.

Ten years ago this week, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., applying the presumption against extraterritoriality to the implied cause of action for human rights violations under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). In Kiobel, the Court began to whittle down the cause of action it had…

Continue Reading

Throwback Thursday: Professor William Casto on the Origins of the Alien Tort Statute

In the spring of 1986, Professor William Casto published an article in the Connecticut Law Review entitled The Federal Courts’ Protective Jurisdiction Over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations. Casto’s article was the first to explore the origins of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) in detail, and despite the many law reviewpages…

Continue Reading

Throwback Thursday: Forty Years of the Bancec Test

The Supreme Court’s 1983 decision in First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba was saddled with a cumbersome mouthful of a title, one confusingly similar to a 1972 opinion in another important case, First National City Bank v. Banco Nacional de Cuba.  Fortunately, the 1983 decision was quickly dubbed Bancec, an…

Continue Reading

Throwback Thursday: Blackmun’s Prescient Dissent in Aérospatiale

In Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. U.S. District Court (1987), the Supreme Court held that U.S. courts need not treat the procedures set forth in the Hague Evidence Convention as the exclusive or even the primary means for managing discovery of evidence located abroad. Four justices dissented in part in a remarkably prescient opinion authored…

Continue Reading

Ingrid (Wuerth) Brunk

Vanderbilt Law School
ingrid.wuerth@vanderbilt.eduEmail

William Dodge

George Washington University Law School
william.dodge@law.gwu.eduEmail

Maggie Gardner

Cornell Law School
mgardner@cornell.eduEmail

John F. Coyle

University of North Carolina School of Law
jfcoyle@email.unc.eduEmail

Zachary D. Clopton

Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
zclopton@law.northwestern.eduEmail

Luana Matoso

Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law
Bio | Posts

Curtis A. Bradley

University of Chicago Law School
Bio | Posts

Pamela K. Bookman

Fordham University School of Law
Bio | Posts

Matthew Salavitch

Fordham Law School
Bio | Posts

Hannah Buxbaum

Indiana University Maurer School of Law
Bio | Posts

Paul B. Stephan

University of Virginia School of Law
Bio | Posts

Noah Buyon

Duke University School of Law
Bio | Posts

Naman Karl-Thomas Habtom

University of Cambridge
Bio | Posts

Ben Köhler

Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law
Bio | Posts

Melissa Stewart

University of Hawai'i, William S. Richardson School of Law.
Bio | Posts

Ian M. Kysel

Cornell Law School
Bio | Posts