EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that foreign plaintiffs cannot sue American companies under the Alien Tort Statute for human rights abuses abroad.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that foreign plaintiffs cannot use the Alien Tort Statute or the Torture Victim Protection Act to sue American companies for allegedly aiding and abetting human rights abuses abroad. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the conservative majority in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe, held that federal judges lack the constitutional authority to create private causes of action under the 1789 statute. The landmark decision sharply restricts the ability of international claimants to haul U.S. corporations into domestic courts over technology sales and commercial ties to foreign regimes.

The litigation originated from a lawsuit brought by unnamed practitioners of Falun Gong, a religious movement banned by the Chinese government. The plaintiffs alleged that Cisco Systems and its top executives aided state-sponsored persecution by engineering and selling surveillance and networking infrastructure, specifically the Golden Shield project. While a federal district court initially dismissed the complaint, the Ninth Circuit revived the claims, ruling that both statutes permitted aiding-and-abetting actions against domestic entities. The Supreme Court’s definitive reversal brings an immediate end to that legal theory.

Emphasizing the constitutional separation of powers, Justice Barrett reasoned that creating private rights of action is an extraordinary legislative prerogative reserved exclusively for Congress. The majority noted that allowing unelected federal judges to recognize new tort claims based on evolving international norms risks severe judicial encroachment on foreign policy. Because the Alien Tort Statute is strictly jurisdictional and the Torture Victim Protection Act makes no mention of secondary liability, the court concluded that Cisco could not be held liable.

The high court’s ruling closely aligns with arguments presented by the federal government, as the Solicitor General’s office urged the justices to rein in extraterritorial litigation. Administration officials had warned that expansive lawsuits could disrupt foreign diplomacy, invite reciprocal foreign litigation against U.S. interests, and chill American technological innovation abroad. Business groups and defense counsel widely celebrated the decision for removing perpetual legal exposure for global manufacturers operating in complex international markets.

Corporate defendants have faced expansive class actions under the Alien Tort Statute for decades, often incurring massive legal costs to defend against claims stemming from the sovereign actions of foreign governments. By closing the door on judicial expansion of international norms, the Supreme Court has re-established strict boundaries for extraterritorial corporate accountability in American courts. The ruling ensures that any future expansion of secondary liability for international human rights violations must come directly from legislative action.