The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that domestic companies cannot be held liable under federal statutes for aiding foreign governments in human rights violations, closing a legal pathway that had allowed human rights lawsuits against U.S. corporations.
The decision addressed whether companies could face liability under the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act for knowingly facilitating abuses by foreign governments. The case originated from a lawsuit by Falun Gong practitioners against Cisco Systems, alleging the San Jose-based technology company sold surveillance infrastructure to China that enabled detention and torture.
The Court’s Reasoning
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, held that courts cannot create new causes of action for violations of international law. “We also hold that the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, which contains an express cause of action, does not provide for aiding-and-abetting liability,” Barrett wrote.
The majority emphasized constitutional separation of powers, arguing that recognizing new private rights of action belongs exclusively to Congress. Allowing federal judges to create tort claims based on evolving international norms risks judicial overreach into foreign policy, a domain reserved for elected branches, the court noted.
Lower Court’s Position
A federal district court had initially dismissed the complaint, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revived the claims. The appeals court ruled both statutes permitted aiding-and-abetting actions against domestic entities that knowingly facilitated customary international law violations.
The Supreme Court’s reversal eliminated that legal theory entirely. The ruling prevents Cisco from facing liability under either statute, according to the decision.
Government and Business Support
The federal government supported Cisco’s position, with the Solicitor General’s office warning that expansive transnational litigation could disrupt foreign diplomacy and invite reciprocal lawsuits against U.S. interests. Business groups praised the decision as removing legal exposure for technology companies operating internationally.
For decades, corporate defendants had faced costly class actions under the Alien Tort Statute stemming from alleged connections to foreign government conduct. The ruling eliminates that litigation avenue.
The Dissent
The court’s three liberal justices disagreed sharply with the majority’s approach. Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued the statutory text naturally includes those who intentionally aid and abet underlying abusive conduct. “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,” she wrote.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed the Torture Victim Protection Act’s framework was sufficiently broad to reach parties providing material, knowing assistance to state-sponsored torture. Justice Elena Kagan joined Sotomayor’s dissent in part.
Broader Implications
The ruling represents the culmination of decades-long conservative efforts to curtail transnational human rights suits in U.S. courts. It establishes that foreign policy remedies must originate in Congress rather than through judge-created tort claims.
