The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that private lawsuits cannot proceed against American companies for allegedly aiding international law violations, delivering a 6-3 decision that narrows the scope of two decades-old statutes.
The ruling in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe restricts how the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act can be used in U.S. courts. The case stemmed from allegations by Falun Gong practitioners who claimed Cisco Systems sold networking equipment to the Chinese government that was used in surveillance operations.
The Court’s Decision
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.
The majority emphasized separation of powers concerns, noting that courts cannot invent liability that could produce “adverse foreign policy consequences.” “The power to create causes of action belongs to Congress,” Barrett stated, arguing that creating such causes “is an extraordinary act that places great stress on the separation of powers.”
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, contending 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.” She wrote that the Torture Victim Protection Act’s plain text includes individuals who aid and abet torture.
Impact on Business Litigation
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.