The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that private lawsuits cannot proceed against American companies for allegedly aiding violations of international law, delivering a 6-3 decision that restricts the scope of two decades-old statutes.
The ruling in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe narrows how the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act can be used in U.S. courts. The decision determines that neither law permits private plaintiffs to bring claims based on aiding and abetting alleged international law violations.
The Case and Claims
The case centered on allegations by Falun Gong practitioners who claimed Cisco Systems sold networking equipment to the Chinese government that was used in surveillance operations. The plaintiffs argued the company and its executives aided in persecution.
The Ninth Circuit had allowed the claims to proceed, but the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision. The Trump administration backed Cisco and urged the Court to reject what it characterized as judicial overreach in foreign-policy matters.
The Majority Opinion
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. “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.
Barrett emphasized separation of powers in the decision. “The power to create causes of action belongs to Congress,” she stated, adding that creating such causes “is an extraordinary act that places great stress on the separation of powers.”
The majority noted concerns about courts inventing liability that could produce “adverse foreign policy consequences.” The opinion stressed that the Alien Tort Statute functions as jurisdictional authority only and does not authorize courts to develop new legal claims.
The Dissents
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Justice Elena Kagan. She agreed with narrowing the Alien Tort Statute but argued the Torture Victim Protection Act’s text could include aiding and abetting liability in certain cases.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented more broadly, joined by Kagan and Jackson in portions of her opinion. Sotomayor contended the majority “jettisons two decades of settled precedent” and “forecloses future reliance on Sosa and shuts the courthouse doors to almost any claimed violation of international law under the ATS.”
On the Torture Victim Protection Act specifically, Sotomayor wrote: “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.”
Implications for Business
The decision limits exposure for American companies facing international claims in U.S. courts. Companies operating abroad will no longer face aiding-and-abetting liability under the two statutes at issue.
The ruling narrows pathways for foreign plaintiffs to pursue cases against U.S. firms in American courts based on alleged international law violations. Legal experts expect the decision will reduce litigation risks for businesses engaged in global commerce.