The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Tuesday that foreign plaintiffs cannot sue American companies in domestic courts over alleged human rights abuses abroad, sharply restricting decades of international litigation.
The decision in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe blocks claims under the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991. The ruling prevents international claimants from holding U.S. corporations accountable in federal courts for technology sales or commercial ties to foreign regimes accused of abuse.
What the Court Decided
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the conservative majority that federal judges lack constitutional authority to create new private lawsuits under the Alien Tort Statute. She held that the Torture Victim Protection Act does not establish secondary liability for companies that aid and abet human rights 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, referencing the court’s 2004 precedent. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined her opinion.
The case originated from a lawsuit by Falun Gong practitioners alleging that Cisco Systems sold surveillance technology to China that facilitated their detention and torture. A federal appeals court had revived the claims, but the Supreme Court reversed that decision.
The Rationale
The majority emphasized constitutional separation of powers, arguing that creating new private rights of action belongs exclusively to Congress. Allowing unelected judges to recognize tort claims based on evolving international standards risks judicial interference in foreign policy, a constitutional domain assigned to the executive and legislative branches.
The federal government had backed Cisco’s position, with the Solicitor General warning that expansive transnational litigation could disrupt diplomacy and invite reciprocal foreign lawsuits against American interests.
Business Community Response
Corporate defendants and business groups hailed the decision as relief from decades of massive litigation costs. Companies had faced expansive class actions under the Alien Tort Statute stemming from the actions of foreign governments.
Tech firms and global manufacturers argued the ruling removes uncertainty about legal exposure when operating in complex international markets.
The Dissent
The court’s three liberal justices disagreed sharply with the majority’s rollback of human rights litigation. Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the Torture Victim Protection Act’s text naturally includes parties who intentionally aid and abet torture.
“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,” Sotomayor wrote. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed the statute was broad enough to reach parties providing material assistance to state-sponsored torture.
What This Means
The ruling completes a decades-long conservative effort to curtail transnational human rights suits in American courts. It establishes that remedies for foreign policy violations must originate in Congress rather than through judge-created tort claims.
