only, committed in violation of the law of nations.” If the ATS does not sufficiently indicate
extraterritorial application, certainly neither does § 78aa. And if the district court in Morrison “had jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 78aa” over claims involving
extraterritorial activity—as the Supreme Court explicitly said it did—then the district court in Kiobel also should have “had jurisdiction under [the ATS]” over claims involving
extraterritorial activity. Having decided, correctly in my view, that the conduct-regulating rule under the ATS comes from international law, the Court essentially painted itself into...