Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe.
In Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe, respondents, six individuals from Mali, alleged they were trafficked into Ivory Coast as child slaves to produce cocoa. They sued Nestlé and Cargill under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), claiming the companies aided and abetted child slavery. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision, determining the case involved impermissible extraterritorial application of the ATS.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe.
The Court held that the judgment of the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe
The Court's decision involves reviewing the application of the Alien Tort Statute and its extraterritorial reach.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The District Court dismissed the suit as an impermissible extraterritorial application of the ATS under Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U. S. 108.
-
Why Standing is relevant to Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe
The case involves determining whether the respondents have the right to bring a claim under the ATS based on the alleged conduct.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Respondents sued Nestlé, Cargill, and others under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS)... contending that this arrangement aids and abets child slavery.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe that support the summary and concepts above.
Respondents are six individuals from Mali who allege that they were trafficked into Ivory Coast as child slaves to produce cocoa.
The Ninth Circuit held, as relevant, that respondents had pleaded a domestic application of the ATS, as required by Kiobel.
The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.
