The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that foreign plaintiffs cannot use federal statutes to sue American companies for allegedly aiding human rights abuses abroad.
The decision in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe restricts the ability of international claimants to bring cases against U.S. corporations in domestic courts over technology sales and commercial ties to foreign governments. Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett held that federal judges lack constitutional authority to create private causes of action under the 1789 Alien Tort Statute and that the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 does not establish secondary liability for aiding and abetting.
What the Court Decided
Barrett was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. “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, referencing the court’s 2004 precedent in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain.
The litigation originated from a lawsuit brought by practitioners of Falun Gong, a religious movement banned by the Chinese government, who alleged detention and torture aided by surveillance infrastructure sold by Cisco Systems. A federal district court initially dismissed the complaint, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revived the claims, ruling both statutes permitted aiding-and-abetting actions against domestic entities.
The Constitutional Reasoning
The majority emphasized that creating private rights of action represents an extraordinary legislative power reserved exclusively to Congress. Barrett reasoned that allowing unelected federal judges to recognize new tort claims based on evolving international norms risks judicial encroachment on foreign policy, a domain the Constitution assigns to the executive and legislative branches.
The federal government supported Cisco’s position during oral argument, with the Solicitor General’s office urging the justices to restrict extraterritorial litigation. Administration officials warned such suits could disrupt foreign diplomacy, invite reciprocal litigation against U.S. interests, and chill American technological innovation abroad.
The Dissent and Business Response
The court’s three liberal justices voiced sharp disagreement with the majority’s approach to human rights litigation. Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that statutory text permitting claims against individuals who “subject” victims to abuse naturally includes those who intentionally aid and abet the underlying conduct. “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,” she wrote.
Business groups and defense counsel celebrated the decision, arguing it removes perpetual legal exposure for technology firms and global manufacturers operating in complex international markets. For decades, corporate defendants had faced expansive class actions under the Alien Tort Statute, incurring massive litigation costs.