Also known as: law of nations · laws of nations · international law · jus gentium
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The body of rules derived from custom, treaties, and general principles that governs relations among sovereign states and other international actors. It supplies standards for conduct on matters such as war, diplomacy, commerce, and individual rights that cross national boundaries. Offenses against these rules may be punished under domestic authority when Congress exercises its enumerated power.
Nathaniel Newman, a U.S. merchant, owns a vessel seized by foreign privateers during hostilities. Congress enacts legislation defining and punishing the seizure as an offense against the law of nations. The statute supplies the legal basis for federal authorities to proceed against the captured property and persons involved.
Natalie Norris, a U.S. citizen, holds title to goods belonging to a foreign national after war is declared. Federal authorities initiate forfeiture under authority tied to the law of nations. The court determines that the goods may be condemned only if Congress has authorized such action through legislation implementing the relevant international rules.
Open the case page for the full write-up.
View caseNaveen Nanda, a Georgia resident, sues the state of Georgia in federal court over a debt. The state asserts that principles drawn from the law of nations bar the suit. The Court examines whether those principles extend immunity to states in the same manner as to foreign sovereigns.
An action of assumpsit was brought against the State of Georgia in the Supreme Court of the United States. Georgia refused to appear in the action because she claimed to be a sovereign State. The Attorney General moved for an order requiring Georgia to enter an appearance on the fourth day of the next Term after notice or show cause why judgment should not be entered for the plaintiff with a writ of enquiry awarded. Service of process was made on the Governor and Attorney General of Georgia. This was the first instance in which the question of such a suit came regularly before the Court. In the Maryland case the Attorney General of the State voluntarily appeared. That case has since been compromised. The present motion required the Court to consider its authority prior to entering any conditional judgment. The plaintiff had been ordered to file his declaration by the first day of March next, with certified copies served on Georgia's Governor and Attorney General by the first day of June next. Unless Georgia appeared or showed cause by the first day of the next Term, judgment by default was to be entered against the State.
View caseNigel Nelson challenges a local ban on possessing certain firearms. He argues that the prohibition conflicts with longstanding understandings under the law of nations concerning the rights of individuals in organized society. The Court evaluates the claim by reference to founding-era sources that incorporated international principles into domestic constitutional analysis.
The District of Columbia generally prohibits the possession of handguns. It is a crime to carry an unregistered firearm, and the registration of handguns is prohibited. Wholly apart from that prohibition, no person may carry a handgun without a license, but the chief of police may issue licenses for one-year periods. District of Columbia law also requires residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities. Respondent Dick Heller is a D.C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms within the home. The District Court dismissed respondent's complaint. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, construing his complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it about his home in that condition only when necessary for self-defense. The Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for respondent. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseNicholas Nunez operates a steamboat service between New York and New Jersey. State officials attempt to enforce an exclusive license against him. He contends that federal authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states, informed by the law of nations, preempts the state restriction.
In 1798 the New York Legislature granted Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton the exclusive right for twenty years to navigate the waters within the jurisdiction of the state with boats moved by fire or steam, a privilege later renewed and extended in 1803 and 1807. The right was assigned first to John R. Livingston and then to Aaron Ogden, who thereby claimed authority to operate steamboats between Elizabethtown, New Jersey, and New York City. Thomas Gibbons, meanwhile, took possession of two steamboats, the Stoudinger and the Bellona, which he employed in the same waters while holding a license issued under the federal Act of February 18, 1793, for enrolling and licensing vessels to be employed in the coasting trade and fisheries. Gibbons filed a bill in the Court of Chancery of New York against Ogden seeking an injunction to restrain Ogden from navigating those waters with steamboats. The bill recited the state grants and the assignment to Ogden, alleged that Ogden was violating the exclusive privilege, and prayed for injunctive relief. Gibbons answered that his vessels were duly enrolled and licensed under the 1793 federal statute and insisted on his right to navigate between Elizabethtown and New York notwithstanding the state legislation. The Chancellor awarded the injunction and, after hearing, perpetuated it on the ground that the New York acts were valid. The Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, the highest court of the state to which the cause could be carried, affirmed the decree. Gibbons then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
View caseNancy Nelson obtains a judgment in Oregon against property owned by a nonresident debtor. The debtor later challenges enforcement, asserting that principles of the law of nations require presence or consent for valid jurisdiction. The Court assesses whether the seizure satisfies traditional international standards for exercising authority over property.
In February 1866, J.H. Mitchell obtained a judgment in an Oregon circuit court against Neff for less than $300 in an action for attorney services. At that time, Neff resided outside Oregon, received no personal service of process, and made no appearance in the case. The judgment was entered by default following constructive service by publication as authorized by the Oregon Code for non-resident defendants possessing property within the state. The Oregon Code also provided for attachment of a non-resident's property in money actions. No such attachment occurred with respect to the land at issue. Instead, after the judgment, an execution issued, leading to a levy on the land and its sale at a sheriff's auction. Pennoyer purchased the property at that sale and received a sheriff's deed. Separately, in 1866, the United States issued a patent to Neff for the same tract of land under the Donation Law of Oregon, which Neff valued at $15,000. Neff then brought suit against Pennoyer in the circuit court to recover possession of the premises based on his patent title. The lower court held the Oregon judgment invalid because of deficiencies in the affidavits used to obtain the publication order and to prove publication occurred. The Supreme Court of the United States granted review to consider the validity of the state court judgment and the resulting sheriff's sale.
View caseArticle I, Section 8 grants Congress power to define and punish piracies, felonies on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations. This authority allows federal legislation to address violations of international rules when they occur within U.S. jurisdiction.
Supporting sources
The Alien Tort Statute grants district courts jurisdiction over civil actions by aliens for torts committed in violation of the law of nations or a U.S. treaty. Courts have applied this statute to certain international law violations, though the precise scope remains subject to judicial interpretation.
Supporting sources
A state may not exercise judicial jurisdiction when inaction is required by international law. Principles drawn from the law of nations can limit a state's ability to adjudicate claims involving foreign sovereigns or property located abroad.
…extent one's property and affairs then become subject to the laws of the nation of domicile of the corporation. As a matter of international law, that suggestion might be acceptable because a foreign investment is sufficiently unusual to make it appropriate to require the investor to study the ramifications of his decision. But a…