Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain
2004 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Alien Tort Statute and the Federal Tort Claims Act. Many ATS claims were filed after the Second Circuit ruling in Filártiga v. Peña-Irala created a new common law cause of action for torture under the ATS: "For purposes of civil liability, the torturer has become—like the pirate and slave trader before him—hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind."[1] The Court in Sosa does not find there is a similar cause of action for arbitrary arrest and detention. They wrote that finding new common law causes of action based on international norms would require "a substantial element of discretionary judgment", and explain that the role of common law has changed since ATS was enacted meaning the Court will "look for legislative guidance before exercising innovative authority over substantive law".[2]
This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2008) |
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain | |
---|---|
Argued March 30, 2004 Decided June 29, 2004 | |
Full case name | Jose Francisco Sosa v. Humberto Alvarez-Machain, et al. |
Docket no. | 03-339 |
Citations | 542 U.S. 692 (more) 124 S. Ct. 2739; 159 L. Ed. 2d 718; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4763; 72 U.S.L.W. 4660; 158 Oil & Gas Rep. 601; 2004 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 515 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior | On writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Souter, joined by unanimous (Parts I and III); Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas (Part II); Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer (Part IV) |
Concurrence | Scalia (in part), joined by Rehnquist, Thomas |
Concurrence | Ginsburg (in part), joined by Breyer |
Concurrence | Breyer (in part) |
Laws applied | |
Alien Tort Statute |
The decision states some limitations on recognizing (or creating) new federal common law causes of action under the ATS : "norms of international character accepted by the civilized world and defined with a specificity comparable to the features to the features of those three 18th century paradigms we have recognized".[3][4]