For the past few years, the US Supreme Court has made it clear that it’s not willing to listen to a human rights abuse lawsuit that was engineered abroad. It has, therefore, instructed the federal courts to throw out such cases in the first instance. The court took a step further by barring the lawsuits completely if the defendant is a corporation. The case been referred in this case involved the Arab Bank as the defendant. This is an international bank that has its headquarters in Jordan. However, it still operates in other 30 countries across the globe. In this case, the Jordanian based bank is being accused of processing a transaction for a group that is linked to terrorism. The said transaction is said to have occurred in a branch that is found in New York. As a result, the plaintiffs want to be compensated for attacks carried on them by Hamas as well as other terrorist organizations that are based in Palestine and Israel. The lawyer for the bank is known as Jeffrey L. Fisher and says that the plaintiffs have brought about grave accusations against the bank. The plaintiffs argue that the bank knowingly and purposefully financed the work of terrorism. As a result, the bank had the expectation that these attacks would be more successful in the future.
The lawyer for the bank known as Paul D. Clement said that the American courts had no business in dealing with such cases that involved foreign parties. He further said that the case had been brought forward by Israel nationals against a corporation that operates from Jordan. He further emphasized that the American courts should use this case as an example to prevent such human right cases from being brought in American courts again. At the same time, he argued that he believed that America should not be the administrator of international justice. He further emphasized that the United States is being used in jurisdictional circumstances by the plaintiffs. This is a case that is being referred to as the Jesner v. Arab Bank, No. 16-499. At the moment, the case has divided the Supreme Court justices along ideological lines. For instance, the conservative ones argue that these corporations cannot be sued in accordance with the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 law. According to Justice Samuel A. Alito and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, these cases have the ability of causing friction with foreign governments.