The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that private plaintiffs cannot pursue aiding-and-abetting lawsuits against American corporations for alleged involvement in international law violations, significantly narrowing litigation pathways against U.S. businesses.
The decision in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe eliminates claims under the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act. The case involved allegations that Cisco sold surveillance equipment to China used to persecute Falun Gong practitioners.
The Court’s Reasoning
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, stated that Congress-not courts-holds authority to create legal remedies for international 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.
The majority emphasized separation of powers concerns, warning that courts inventing liability risks “adverse foreign policy consequences.” Barrett noted the Alien Tort Statute functions as jurisdictional only and does not authorize courts to create new claims.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined Barrett’s opinion.
The Dissents
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Justice Elena Kagan. They agreed to narrow the Alien Tort Statute but argued the Torture Victim Protection Act could encompass aiding-and-abetting liability in specific cases.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a broader dissent, contending the majority “jettisons two decades of settled precedent.” She warned the ruling “forecloses future reliance on Sosa and shuts the courthouse doors to almost any claimed violation of international law under the ATS.”
Impact on Corporate Litigation
The ruling eliminates a significant litigation avenue targeting U.S. corporations over their international operations. Lower courts had previously allowed similar claims to proceed, creating legal exposure for American companies abroad.
The Ninth Circuit had permitted the Falun Gong practitioners’ claims against Cisco to move forward before the Supreme Court reversed that decision.
