Esther Kiobel, Individually and on Behalf of Her Late Husband, Dr. Barinem Kiobel, et al., Petitioners v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. et al.
The court found that the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).
569 U.S. 108 · No. 10-1491 · 2012 term · Roberts Court
Decided Apr 17, 2013 · argued Feb 28, 2012, reargued Oct 1, 2012
Judicial power · Standing to sue: legal injury
Majority opinion: John Roberts
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Affirmed. Esther Kiobel, Individually and on Behalf of Her Late Husband, Dr. Barinem Kiobel, et al., Petitioners lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Esther Kiobel, Individually and on Behalf of Her Late Husband, Dr. Barinem Kiobel, et al., Petitioners was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court found that the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). According to the Court's majority opinion, "it would reach too far to say that mere corporate presence suffices" to displace the presumption against extraterritoriality when all the alleged wrongful conduct takes place outside the United States.
The Court did not rule out the possibility of corporate liability if the presumption against extraterritoriality could be overcome by acts that sufficiently "touch and concern" the United States. Lower court decisions were divided. After the Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC ruled out an ATS cause of action against foreign corporate defendants, the significance of the "touch and concern" test remains unclear.
Kiobel is considered a 'foreign cubed' case in which foreign plaintiffs made a claim against a foreign company for human rights violations overseas.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2012 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
John RobertsWrote the majority opinion
Stephen BreyerWrote a concurrence
Anthony KennedyWrote a concurrence
Samuel AlitoWrote a concurrence
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Elena KaganJoined the majority
Antonin ScaliaJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Esther Kiobel, Individually and on Behalf of Her Late Husband, Dr. Barinem Kiobel, et al., PetitionersAlien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked
- Respondent
- Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. et al.Oil company, or natural gas producer
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- 28-1350
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- Decided by
- Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Apr 17, 2013DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed. Esther Kiobel, Individually and on Behalf of Her Late Husband, Dr. Barinem Kiobel, et al., Petitioners lost.
- Oct 1, 2012RearguedReargued · The Court heard the case argued a second time.
- Feb 28, 2012ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: petition denied or appeal dismissed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the New York Southern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
8 other argued cases since 1946 on standing to sue: legal injury, newest first.
- Murthy v. Missouri144 S. Ct. 1972Jun 26, 2024 · 144 S. Ct. 1972Judicial power6–36–3 band
- Transunion LLC v. Ramirez141 S. Ct. 2190Jun 25, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 2190Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Nestle USA v. Doe I141 S. Ct. 1931Jun 17, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1931Judicial power8–18–1 band
- Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill139 S. Ct. 1945Jun 17, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 1945Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC138 S. Ct. 1386Apr 24, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 1386Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Wittman v. Personhuballah578 U.S. 539May 23, 2016 · 578 U.S. 539Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
- Sprint Communs. Co., L.P. v. Apcc Servs.554 U.S. 269Jun 23, 2008 · 554 U.S. 269Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Medimmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., et al.549 U.S. 118Jan 9, 2007 · 549 U.S. 118Judicial power8–18–1 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.