Supreme Court limits human-rights suits in Cisco Systems v. Doe
In Cisco Systems v. Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that courts may not create new causes of action under the Alien Tort Statute, rejecting a suit that accused Cisco of helping China torture Falun Gong practitioners. Justice Barrett wrote the majority opinion, ruling that neither the Alien Tort Statute nor the Torture Victim Protection Act allows courts to impose aiding-and-abetting liability on U.S. corporations for abuses abroad. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented. The ruling sharply narrows legal avenues for foreign human-rights plaintiffs to sue U.S. companies and leaves Congress as the primary path to create such private causes of action.
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...
Mark Joseph Stern372Sotomayor, 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 Dahl7Someone alert Sarah Isgur so she can tell us that the court actually isn't divided along partisan lines.
Et Si C'etait La Fin?5If it's a day ending in -y we're gonna see the numbers 6-3 somewhere or another
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...
Chris Geidner51The 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.social8Gee, what a shock. The Republican 6 make a pro-corporate decision.
![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](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:4qmg6r3shnk3mfst5w3g6wy2/bafkreibqvxm7x4vzsjzukhhf3a3tbmmfk7bzlcxasj76wye45ywl5ncnra)
