Washington ( CNN ) -- Global energy giant Exxon Mobil Corp. will be forced to face a lawsuit over alleged murder and torture committed by company agents in remote Indonesia , after a federal appeals court said Friday that corporations can not claim immunity from liability . A divided 2-1 panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reinstated a massive lawsuit filed by 15 Indonesian villagers from the oil-rich province of Aceh . They claim government security forces working for Exxon Mobil committed brutal oppression while guarding a natural gas facility in 2000-01 . At issue is whether foreign nationals can go into U.S. courts to press civil claims stemming from actions overseas by non-American citizens in a time of martial law . The decision will have widespread implications for multinational corporations doing business in other countries . `` It would create a bizarre anomaly to immunize corporations from liability for the conduct of their agents in lawsuits brought for 'shockingly egregious violations of universally recognized principles of international law , ' '' wrote Judge Judith Rogers in a detailed , 112-page opinion . `` The law of the United States has been uniform since its founding that corporations can be held liable for the torts committed by their agents . This is confirmed in international practice , both in treaties and in legal systems throughout the world . '' Rogers was supported by her colleague Judge David Tatel , both named to the bench by President Bill Clinton . Company spokesman Patrick McGinn said the ruling was being reviewed , and that the Irving , Texas-based firm has `` fought these baseless claims for many years . '' `` The plaintiffs ' claims are without merit , '' he said . `` While conducting its business in Indonesia , ExxonMobil has worked for generations to improve the quality of life in Aceh through employment of local workers , provision of health services and extensive community investment . `` The company strongly condemns human rights violations in any form . '' The litigation is more than a decade old . The company had contracted with the Indonesian government to explore , extract , and process the gas . It hired military personnel as private security for the remote location . A key sticking point in the legal fight was the level of control Exxon Mobil officials in Aceh had over the actions of the Indonesian military . The plaintiffs alleged company officials in Indonesia were aware the military had committed past human rights violations . And they claim Exxon Mobil offered `` material support '' by separately hiring private mercenaries who provided `` advice , training , intelligence , and equipment '' to the dedicated military unit , which in turn committed brutal repression of locals , according to the lawsuit . Other allegations included sexual assault , battery , kidnapping , and false imprisonment against the villagers , many of whom had protested the presence of the company , fearing ecological and cultural damage to the region . Those questions will now be presented at trial , as the lawsuit is allowed to proceed . There was no timetable for when that trial will begin . In dissent , Judge Brett Kavanaugh , appointed by President George W. Bush , said the federal law in question , the Alien Tort Statute , applies only to actions committed in the United States . `` The presumption helps the United States avoid conflicts with other nations , which of course have a strong interest in policing and regulating conduct in their own countries , '' Kavanaugh wrote . `` The ATS contains no textual indication that it was meant to apply to conduct in foreign countries . '' The issue may eventually reach the Supreme Court , since lower federal courts have disagreed on the liability of conduct by U.S. companies operating around the world . The case is John Doe VII v. Exxon Mobil Corp. ( 09-7125 ) .
Exxon Mobile can not claim immunity in the case , an appeals panel says . A lawsuit filed by Indonesian villagers accuses Exxon Mobil agents of murder and torture . The case hinges on whether the Alien Tort Statute applies to actions in other countries .