[SeeSharp]

The plaintiff's legal argument was based on a law passed back in 1789, and still on the books, which says that an "alien" can sue in U.S. federal court for a "tort in violation of the law of nations." Their factual argument was that payments used to fund terrorism were funneled through bank accounts in New York.

Right, but it looks to me like the act was mostly intended to prevent state courts from getting involved in legitimate torts involving foreigners. Remember the federal courts do not have general jurisdiction over torts. Ordinarily one has to establish either that a federal law is involved in the dispute, or that there is a diversity of jurisdiction between the plaintiff and the defendant, just to get standing to file a tort claim in a federal court. The 1789 act grants sole jurisdiction over torts involving foreigners to the federal courts. I think that was all it was intended to do.

[Lurking Libertarian]

The 1789 act grants sole jurisdiction over torts involving foreigners to the federal courts. I think that was all it was intended to do.

Yes, but not all torts, only torts "in violation of the law of nations" (which was 18th Century-speak for "international law").