Supreme Court limits human-rights suits in Cisco Systems v. Doe

techJun 23, 202622588

In Cisco Systems v. Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett held that federal courts may not create new causes of action under the Alien Tort Statute. The court also ruled that the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 does not authorize aiding-and-abetting liability, and it reversed the Ninth Circuit in a suit alleging Cisco helped China build surveillance used to torture Falun Gong adherents. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented, warning the ruling will curtail civil remedies for victims of foreign human rights abuses. The decision sharply narrows avenues for suing U.S. companies over alleged complicity in abuses abroad, leaving Congress as the primary path to create new private causes of action.

Mark Joseph Stern

@mjsdc.bsky.social

The Supreme Court's first opinion is a 6–3 ruling in Cisco v. Doe. Per Barrett, courts may NOT create new causes of action for violations of international norms under the Alien Tort Statute. All three liberals dissent. More opinions to come. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

JUSTICE BARRETT delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Alien Tort Statute grants federal courts jurisdiction
to hear cases involving violations of the law of nations.
While conceding that the ATS is “strictly jurisdictional,” we
have also said that courts have narrow authority to create
causes of action under it. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542
U. S. 692, 713, 724–725 (2004). These positions are in obvious tension with one another. More significantly, however, asserting such authority would intrude on both Congress’s prerogative to provide rights of action and the power
of the political branches to direct the Nation’s foreign policy. It is therefore unsurprising that this Court has never
created an ATS action. The authority to do so, always described as slight, is more accurately described as nonexistent.
Today, we close the door that Sosa cracked and hold that
courts may not create new causes of action for violations of
international norms. 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.

23845d ago

Mark Joseph Stern407

Sotomayor, dissenting, cuts to the chase: "Today’s decision marks yet another low point in this Court’s esteem for its precedents." www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

Noah Dahl7

Someone alert Sarah Isgur so she can tell us that the court actually isn't divided along partisan lines.

Et Si C'etait La Fin?5

If it's a day ending in -y we're gonna see the numbers 6-3 somewhere or another

Chris Geidner

@chrisgeidner.bsky.social

The first SCOTUS opinion is Cisco Systems v. Doe. Barrett has the opinion for the court reversing the Ninth Circuit in the Alien Tort Statute case. Courts may not create new causes of action under the law, the court holds. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

13045d ago

Chris Geidner57

The second SCOTUS opinion is Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex. Kavanaugh has the opinion for the court reversing the D.C. Circuit in the second Cuba case from this term. Court holds the Helms-Burton Act abrogates the sovereign immunity of Cuban agencies. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

joschein.bsky.social10

Gee, what a shock. The Republican 6 make a pro-corporate decision.

Taniel

@taniel.bsky.social

First opinion, written by Justice Barrett in what looks to be a 6-2-1 decision, is in Cisco Systems v. Doe. It basically says the federal statutes in question don't allow private parties to sue for "aiding and abetting" as a violation of international norms. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

5345d ago

Matt Cameron

@mattcameron.bsky.social

ACB: surveillance tech company has no liability under Alien Tort Statute for knowingly selling systems to an authoritarian government which is imprisoning and torturing dissidents because they are are "one or more steps" removed from the torture they know they are facilitating (Cisco v. Doe)

Just so here. The TVPA nowhere mentions aiding-andabetting liability, and that silence is enough to settle the
issue. As then-Judge Kavanaugh put it, Central Bank
makes it “crystal clear” that no aiding-and-abetting liability
exists under the TVPA because Congress has not expressly
provided for it. Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 654 F. 3d 11, 87
(CADC 2011) (dissenting opinion). We agree.
Plaintiffs counter that “subjects” is broad enough to include aiding-and-abetting liability. It is not. To “subject”
another to torture means “to cause to undergo or submit to.”
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2275 (1993);
see also American Heritage Dictionary 1788 (3d ed. 1992)
(“[t]o cause to experience”). The term thus signals a causal
connection between torturer and victim. Aiding-and-abetting liability, by contrast, encompasses many forms of assistance provided by those who are one (or more) steps removed from the torturer. See Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598
U. S. 471, 497 (2023) (disclaiming a “strict nexus” requirement). Central Bank rejected a similar argument—that the
phrase “‘directly or indirectly’” in §10(b) authorized aidingand-abetting liability. 511 U. S., at 175−176. The “basic

3345d ago

Matt Cameron15

Kavanaugh, literally five minutes later: suing Cuba is always fine though, especially to reclaim the property of a US oil company. (Yes, I know Helms-Burton is very different from ATS but the timing is so perfect that this has to be a troll by whoever puts together these SCOTUS mixtapes)

jenna ruddock

@ruddock.bsky.social

while we're still waiting for a big domestic surveillance tech opinion in Chatrie v. United States, SCOTUS just dealt a blow to those seeking justice for the use of U.S.-based surveillance tech to enable human rights abuses abroad in Cisco Systems v. Doe.

1945d ago

Sen. Lemon Gogurt

@ugarles.bsky.social

of the cases decided today, the green card case is receiving all of the attention but imo the MUCH worse cases are Cisco v Doe and Landor v Louisiana DOC which make it hard to sue corporations that aided and abetted torture on the one hand and racist prison guards on the other.

3345d ago

Matt Ford

@mford.bsky.social

First up from SCOTUS today is Cisco Systems v. Doe, limiting new causes of action under the Alien Tort Statute. 6-3 by Barrett along the usual lines. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

2645d ago

Bloomberg News

@bloomberg.com

The US Supreme Court put new limits on lawsuits against companies over atrocities abroad, rejecting a suit accusing Cisco Systems Inc. of complicity in China’s torture of Falun Gong adherents. Read more:

1845d ago

SCOTUSblog

@scotusblog.com

The first opinion is in Cisco Systems v. Doe. The court holds that "courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms" and that the Torture Victim Protection Act "does not provide for aiding-and-abetting liability."

845d ago

Steven Mazie

@stevenmazie.bsky.social

First decision: Cisco Systems v Doe, a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Barrett. Held: Courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms under the Alien Tort Statute. Dissent by Justice Sotomayor (joined, mostly, by Kagan & Jackson) www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

1345d ago

Kelsey Reichmann

@kelseyreichmann.bsky.social

First decision: Cisco Systems v. Doe Supreme Court rules that the Alien Tort Statute and Torture Victims Protection Act can not be used by Chinese nationals to sue a US company for aiding and abetting human rights abuses by the Communist Party

645d ago

Turquoise Roof

@turquoiseroof.org

Why Cisco v. Doe matters beyond Falun Gong: SCOTUS made it far harder to bring US civil claims against companies accused of enabling human rights abuses abroad:

344d ago

Walter Olson

@walterolson.bsky.social

I wrote up today's Alien Tort Statute case, Cisco Systems v. Doe: "...These issues are all basically statutory, and a new Congress could, if it chose, craft new federal law creating or expanding rights to sue in this area [as it has done in the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991]."

445d ago

Gary Wright II

@gary-wright.com

Today is a #SCOTUS opinion day!⚖️ The first opinion is Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe There are one or more opinions coming in a few minutes... www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

145d ago

BrynoDC

@brynodc.bsky.social

The Supreme Court just released its opinion in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe. Full coverage: https://tracker.brynodc.com/cases/TMR-cec05b03

145d ago

2 sources

bloom.bgSupreme Court Puts New Curbs on Human-Rights Suits in Cisco Win scotusalerts.comCisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe

Mark Zuckerberg directed Meta to build a prediction‑markets apptech Supreme Court limits human-rights suits in Cisco Systems v. Doetech

Supreme Court limits human-rights suits in Cisco Systems v. Doe

Related