Early ATS cases

As mentioned previously the early cases regarding the ATS only discussed the ATS by reference, not by a direct citation of the statute.

In O'Reilly De Camara v. Brooke, the plaintiff, a Cuban subject sued in federal court to reacquire the position of High Sheriff of Havana. One of the counts used the following language, "of all suits brought by any alien for a tort ‘only’ in violation of the law of nations, or of a treaty of the United States." The Court found that plaintiff's argument was weak and did not amount to a tort in voilation of the law of nations. "In this court the plaintiff seems to place more reliance upon the suggestion that her rights [to office of High Sheriff] were of so fundamental a nature that they could not be displaced, even if Congress and the Executive should unite in the effort. It is not necessary to say more about that contention than that it is not the ground on which the jurisdiction of the district court was invoked." 209 U.S. 45, 51 (1908) The Court determined that the plaintiff did not have a valid cause of action against the defendant.

In Khedivial Line, S. A. E. v. Seafarers' Intern. Union, the plaintiff, owners of a vessel from the United Arab Republic, sought an injunction against the dockworkers union for protesting. The plaintiffs alleged a number of causes of action including that the complaint states a claim for a tort committed in violation of the law of nations within 28 U.S.C. § 1350 278 F.2d 49, 51 (2d Cir. 1960). Plaintiff was unable to show that a treaty existed between the United States and the United Arab Republic regarding harbor access or that any law of nations allowed unrestricted access to harbors by vessels of any nation. Id. at 52. The Court further found that appellants argument that equitable relief if it cannot be granted under maritime law; it should be granted under 28 U.S.C. 1350. The Court disagreed.

In Adra v. Clift the plaintiff father (alien from Lebanon) sued his ex-wife, (alien from Iraq) now married to a U.S. citizen husband in Maryland, for custody and support payments of the child (Lebanese citizen). According to the court 28 U.S.C.A. does not require any pecuinary claims. 195 F.Supp. 857, 863 (D. Md. 1961). The court held that the actions of the defendant did constitute a tort in voilation of the laws of nations. However, after considering the best interest of the child the court held that it would not grant relief to the plaintiff. Id. at 866-867. In the end the father was not able to get his daughter back even though he had won suits in both Lebanon and the United States.