The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that private plaintiffs cannot sue American companies for allegedly aiding violations of international law, significantly narrowing a legal avenue used to hold U.S. businesses accountable for their international operations.
The decision in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe eliminates aiding-and-abetting claims under the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act. The case originated from allegations that Cisco sold surveillance equipment to China that was used to persecute Falun Gong practitioners.
The Majority’s Reasoning
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority that Congress, not courts, holds power to create legal remedies. “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 judicial creation of liability risks “adverse foreign policy consequences.” Barrett stressed that the Alien Tort Statute serves as a jurisdictional measure only and does not authorize courts to invent new claims.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined Barrett’s opinion.
The Dissenting Views
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 certain 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 U.S. Corporations
The ruling eliminates a significant source of litigation targeting American companies over their international operations. Lower courts had previously allowed similar claims to proceed, creating legal exposure for U.S. businesses abroad.
The Ninth Circuit had permitted the Falun Gong practitioners’ claims against Cisco to move forward before the Supreme Court reversed course. The decision substantially reshapes the legal landscape for corporate accountability in international contexts.
