even if a constitutional claim had been stated, a tort remedy should be crafted under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). Our en banc opinion neither assumes nor decides that question. 2 . See Princz v. Fed. Republic of Germany, 26 F.3d 1166, 1174 (D.C.Cir.1994) (rejecting the argument that jus cogens violations implicitly waive sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act); Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Argentina, 965 F.2d 699, 718-19 (9th Cir.1992) (same); Goldstar (Panama) S.A. v. United States, 967 F.2d 965, 968-69 (4th Cir.1992) (rejecting plaintiffs' argument that the ATS waived the United States’ sovereign immunity); Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 207 (D.C.Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). 3 . The plaintiffs argue that Graham is
holding that waiver of federal tort claims act sovereign immunity is conditioned upon strict compliance with exhaustion requirement holding that the alien tort statute itself is not a waiver of sovereign immunity holding that rfras waiver of sovereign immunity did not extend to monetary damages the acts reference to appropriate relief was susceptible to more than one interpretation and thus was not an unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity holding an antiretaliation statute meaningless absent waiver of sovereign immunity holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal