for a tort (3) committed in violation of the law of nations (i.e., international law).” Kadic v. Karad- zic, 70 F.8d 232, 238 (2d Cir.1995); see also Flores v. Southern Peru Corp., 348 F.3d 140, 143 n. 2 (2d Cir.2003). Certain Plaintiffs in these actions are aliens and the complaints all allege common law

rwhelming majority of States, *124 condemned by binding United Nations Security Council resolutions, and repudiated by individual nations. See, e.g., Flores v. S. Peru Copper Corp., 414 F.3d 233, 256-57, 261-62 (2d Cir. 2003); Filartiga v. Pena-lrala, 630 F.2d 876, 881-84 (2d Cir. 1980). Because the Const

er Prize. Hamilton successfully challenged the constitutionality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") at the Supreme Court in Boerne v. Flores (1997), DONATE EFTA00037120