WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a major ruling restricting the ability of foreign plaintiffs to pursue human rights lawsuits against American corporations over alleged abuses committed abroad, delivering a significant legal victory to businesses facing claims tied to foreign governments.
In a 6–3 decision in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe (No. 24-856), the court concluded that the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) does not authorize federal judges to create new causes of action based on international legal norms and that the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) does not provide for aiding-and-abetting liability.
The decision centers on whether American companies can be held financially responsible in U.S. courts for allegedly providing technology, equipment or other assistance that foreign governments use to commit human rights abuses. The ruling narrows the legal avenues available to victims seeking compensation for alleged torture and persecution overseas.
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. The three liberal justices dissented, raising concerns about the implications for corporate accountability.
Lawsuit Involved Alleged Surveillance of Falun Gong Practitioners
The case arose from a lawsuit filed by anonymous practitioners of Falun Gong, a spiritual movement that Chinese authorities have banned and subjected to an extensive campaign of suppression.
The plaintiffs alleged that Chinese security officials engaged in surveillance, arbitrary detention, forced labor and torture against members of the movement. They claimed that Cisco Systems, a California-based technology company, and several senior executives knowingly helped develop technological systems used to identify and monitor Falun Gong practitioners.
According to the allegations, Cisco provided customized hardware and software for China’s Golden Shield surveillance initiative, a public-security system designed to support law enforcement and monitoring operations.
The plaintiffs argued that certain technological components were specifically adapted to help authorities identify, track and catalog Falun Gong adherents, enabling officials to target individuals for detention and abuse.
Cisco’s alleged role formed the basis of the plaintiffs’ argument that the company should be held liable for knowingly assisting human rights violations. These claims were allegations presented in litigation, rather than findings that Cisco had committed the abuses described.
A federal district court initially dismissed the lawsuit. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently revived the case, concluding that the plaintiffs could pursue claims under the ATS and TVPA based on alleged assistance to serious human rights violations.
The Supreme Court’s decision reverses that outcome and rejects the legal theories used to advance the claims.
Majority Emphasizes Congress’s Authority
In explaining the ruling, Barrett focused on the separation of powers and the limits of judicial authority.
The majority reasoned that creating new legal rights allowing individuals to seek monetary damages is principally a responsibility for Congress, not federal judges interpreting broad principles of international law.
The Alien Tort Statute dates to 1789 and gives federal courts jurisdiction over certain civil actions involving violations of international law. However, the court emphasized that the statute does not itself establish a broad, independent system of liability for every alleged international human rights violation.
The majority also examined the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, which expressly authorizes civil claims against individuals responsible for torture and extrajudicial killings under specified circumstances.
According to the court, the statute does not explicitly extend liability to those accused of aiding and abetting another person’s conduct.
The justices concluded that courts could not expand the law to include that form of secondary liability without sufficient authorization from Congress.
The majority’s approach reflects longstanding judicial concerns about allowing domestic lawsuits over conduct occurring primarily in foreign countries. Such cases can raise complicated questions involving diplomatic relations, national sovereignty and the appropriate limits of American judicial authority.
Corporate Groups Welcome Greater Legal Clarity
The decision is expected to influence how multinational companies assess legal risks associated with operating in countries where governments face allegations of systematic human rights abuses.
Businesses that supply communications equipment, surveillance technology, industrial systems or other commercial products to foreign governments have sometimes faced lawsuits alleging that their products or services contributed to abuses.
Supporters of the ruling argue that companies should not automatically face American litigation simply because their products are used by foreign authorities accused of wrongdoing. They also contend that clear statutory requirements are necessary to prevent courts from imposing liability beyond what Congress has authorized.
Critics, however, warn that limiting such lawsuits could make it harder for victims to seek compensation when alleged abuses involve sophisticated technology or commercial assistance supplied by private companies.
The dispute highlights a difficult question for international business: where should the law draw the line between ordinary commercial activity and knowingly providing assistance that enables serious human rights violations?
Liberal Justices Warn of Accountability Concerns
Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a strong dissent, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, challenging the majority’s interpretation of the Torture Victim Protection Act.
Sotomayor argued that the law’s language and established principles of tort liability support claims against individuals who intentionally assist torture. In her view, excluding aiding-and-abetting liability improperly restricts the statute’s ability to provide remedies for victims.
She maintained that people who knowingly facilitate severe abuse should not necessarily escape responsibility merely because they did not personally carry out the physical acts of torture.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also wrote separately, concurring in part and dissenting in part, with Kagan joining her opinion. Jackson expressed concerns about narrowing the TVPA’s reach, arguing that Congress intended the statute to provide a meaningful avenue for victims of torture to seek relief.
The dissenting justices warned that the ruling could leave victims with fewer options for pursuing claims against parties alleged to have materially assisted abuses committed by foreign governments.
A Significant Shift in Transnational Human Rights Litigation
The decision continues a broader Supreme Court trend toward limiting the use of American courts to resolve allegations involving conduct overseas.
Earlier decisions, including Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain in 2004, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. in 2013 and Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe in 2021, established important restrictions on human rights litigation under the Alien Tort Statute.
The Cisco ruling further defines the boundaries of those lawsuits by rejecting the aiding-and-abetting theories advanced under both statutes in this case.
For multinational businesses, the decision offers greater clarity about the circumstances in which federal courts may impose liability for alleged assistance to abuses abroad. For human rights advocates, it raises renewed concerns about whether victims can obtain meaningful remedies when alleged wrongdoing involves corporate actors operating across international borders.
The broader legal consequences will depend on how lower courts apply the ruling and whether Congress considers legislation expressly addressing corporate assistance in overseas human rights violations.
Ultimately, the decision reinforces the Supreme Court majority’s position that expanding federal civil liability in international human rights cases requires clear legislative authorization rather than judicially created causes of action.
