The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Tuesday in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe that private plaintiffs cannot bring lawsuits for aiding and abetting violations of international law under either the Alien Tort Statute or the Torture Victim Protection Act, reshaping decades of precedent on how U.S. courts address alleged overseas human rights abuses tied to American companies.
The decision emerged from a case where unnamed Falun Gong practitioners alleged that Cisco Systems and its executives aided the Chinese government’s persecution by selling surveillance networking equipment. The Ninth Circuit had allowed the claims to proceed, but the nation’s highest court reversed course.
What Happened
Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. The ruling closes off a legal avenue that had expanded since the Supreme Court’s 1980 Sosa decision, which initially cracked open the possibility of ATS lawsuits for certain international law violations.
“Today, we close the door that Sosa cracked and hold that courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms,” Barrett wrote. She also stated that the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, while containing an express cause of action for direct torture, does not provide for aiding-and-abetting liability.
The case centered on whether companies and their executives could face liability for selling products or services to governments that later use those tools in alleged human rights abuses. The plaintiffs contended that Cisco’s networking equipment enabled the Chinese government’s surveillance apparatus used against religious minorities.
The Reaction
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Justice Elena Kagan. Jackson agreed with narrowing the ATS but argued the TVPA’s text could encompass aiding and abetting in some cases.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented more broadly, joined by Kagan and Jackson in key parts. She contended the majority “jettisons two decades of settled precedent” and warned it “forecloses future reliance on Sosa and shuts the courthouse doors to almost any claimed violation of international law under the ATS.” On the TVPA specifically, Sotomayor said, “Because the plain text of this statute includes individuals who aid and abet the victim’s torture, I would affirm the Ninth Circuit’s judgment on this score as well.”
The Trump administration had strongly backed the case and supported Cisco’s position. The Solicitor General participated in oral argument, urging the Court to reject what he characterized as judicial overreach that exposes American firms to unpredictable foreign-policy litigation.
What This Means
The decision emphasizes separation of powers principles. Barrett stressed that Congress, not courts, holds the power to create causes of action, noting that doing so “is an extraordinary act that places great stress on the separation of powers.” She warned that inventing new liability under the ATS risks “adverse foreign policy consequences” and entangles the judiciary in matters best left to the executive and legislative branches.
For U.S. companies operating internationally, the ruling eliminates a significant category of litigation exposure. Foreign plaintiffs alleging corporate complicity in overseas abuses will no longer have recourse to American courts under these two statutes for aiding-and-abetting theories, substantially narrowing the scope of international human rights litigation in federal courts.
The ruling reflects a broader judicial approach favoring textual and structural limits on judicial authority. By rejecting implied causes of action and clarifying that statutes must explicitly authorize aiding-and-abetting liability, the Court has reinforced doctrinal boundaries that constrain judge-created remedies.
