The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that companies cannot be sued under federal law for aiding and abetting violations of international norms.
The decision in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe marks a significant shift in how U.S. courts handle international human rights litigation. The ruling limits both the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act, preventing private plaintiffs from pursuing aiding-and-abetting claims in federal court.
What the Court Decided
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, stated: “Today, we close the door that Sosa cracked and hold that courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms.” The majority comprised Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
Barrett also wrote that the Torture Victim Protection Act “does not provide for aiding-and-abetting liability.” The ruling emphasizes that the power to create legal causes of action belongs exclusively to Congress, not federal courts.
The case centered on allegations by Falun Gong practitioners that Cisco sold surveillance equipment to the Chinese government, knowing it would be used for persecution. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had allowed the case to proceed, but the Supreme Court reversed that decision.
The Separations of Powers Argument
Barrett stressed the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers in the opinion. “Creating any cause of action is an extraordinary act that places great stress on the separation of powers,” she wrote, emphasizing that judges cannot invent new legal remedies.
The Trump administration actively supported Cisco’s position, with the Solicitor General participating in oral arguments. Administration officials argued that such lawsuits expose American companies to unpredictable litigation and interfere with foreign policy decisions that belong to Congress and the executive branch.
The Dissenting View
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Justice Elena Kagan. Jackson agreed the Alien Tort Statute should be narrowed but argued the Torture Victim Protection Act’s text could support aiding-and-abetting claims in some circumstances.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a broader dissent, joined by Kagan and Jackson on key portions. “The majority jettisons two decades of settled precedent,” Sotomayor wrote, adding that the decision “shuts the courthouse doors to almost any claimed violation of international law under the ATS.”
What This Means
The decision eliminates a legal avenue that human rights advocates have used for decades to hold companies accountable for alleged complicity in international abuses. Companies operating abroad will face reduced exposure to lawsuits alleging they assisted foreign governments in human rights violations.
Legal experts say the ruling reflects the current Supreme Court’s textualist approach, which focuses on the plain language of statutes rather than broader interpretations. The decision will likely impact pending cases and deter future litigation based on similar legal theories.