The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 that private plaintiffs cannot hold companies liable for aiding and abetting violations of international law under two major federal statutes, a decision that significantly narrows a path American firms have faced in litigation over conduct abroad.
The Case Against Cisco
The ruling in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe dismissed claims brought by Falun Gong practitioners, who accused the networking equipment maker of helping the Chinese government carry out surveillance. The decision limits the reach of the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act, two laws that have been used to pursue lawsuits against U.S. companies operating overseas.
Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett held that courts do not have the authority to create new causes of action for violations of international norms under the Alien Tort Statute. “The power to create causes of action belongs to Congress,” Barrett wrote.
The majority also found that the Torture Victim Protection Act does not allow for aiding-and-abetting liability, even though the statute includes an express cause of action for direct violations. Barrett argued that recognizing new theories of liability strains the separation of powers and could produce unwanted consequences for U.S. foreign policy.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined Barrett’s opinion.
The case had already moved forward in the lower courts. The Ninth Circuit had allowed claims against Cisco to proceed on the theory that the company could be liable for selling surveillance equipment to Chinese authorities. The Supreme Court reversed that ruling.
The original lawsuit alleged that Cisco and its executives knowingly supplied networking equipment used to monitor and persecute Falun Gong practitioners in China.
Dissenting Voices
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Justice Elena Kagan. She contended that the text of the Torture Victim Protection Act could cover aiding and abetting in some cases.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a broader dissent, joined in parts by Kagan and Jackson. She argued that the majority “jettisons two decades of settled precedent” and closes the courthouse doors to violations of international law under the Alien Tort Statute. On the Torture Victim Protection Act, Sotomayor maintained that the plain statutory language reaches individuals who aid and abet torture.
What It Means for Businesses
The decision narrows the legal avenues available to plaintiffs seeking to hold American companies accountable for overseas conduct that may breach international norms. Future suits under these statutes will now face substantially higher legal hurdles.
The Trump administration backed the case and took part in oral arguments, urging the Court to reject what it described as judicial overreach in matters of foreign policy.
