The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that private plaintiffs cannot sue American companies for allegedly aiding international law violations, closing off a major avenue of litigation against U.S. businesses.
The decision in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe eliminates the ability to pursue aiding-and-abetting claims under two federal statutes: the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act. The case centered on allegations that Cisco sold surveillance equipment to China that was used to persecute Falun Gong practitioners.
The Court’s Reasoning
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, emphasized that Congress-not courts-holds the power to create legal remedies. “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.
The majority stressed separation of powers concerns, warning that judicial creation of liability risks “adverse foreign policy consequences.” Barrett noted the Alien Tort Statute is jurisdictional only and does not authorize courts to invent new claims.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined Barrett’s opinion.
The Dissents
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, agreeing to narrow the Alien Tort Statute but arguing the Torture Victim Protection Act could encompass aiding-and-abetting liability in some cases.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a broader dissent, contending the majority “jettisons two decades of settled precedent.” She warned the ruling “forecloses future reliance on Sosa and shuts the courthouse doors to almost any claimed violation of international law under the ATS.”
What This Means
The ruling eliminates a significant source of litigation targeting U.S. corporations over their international operations. Lower courts had previously allowed similar claims to proceed, creating legal exposure for American companies abroad.
The Ninth Circuit had permitted the Falun Gong practitioners’ claims against Cisco to move forward before the Supreme Court reversed course.
