Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe
Decision
The Supreme Court ruled that federal courts cannot create new lawsuits for international law violations under the Alien Tort Statute and that the Torture Victim Protection Act does not allow for aiding-and-abetting claims.
The Court blocked a lawsuit against Cisco Systems by members of the Falun Gong religious group, who claimed the company's technology helped China identify and persecute them.
Plain-English summary generated by AI from the Court's published opinion on June 23, 2026. Always read the official opinion for the controlling text.
Key Takeaways
- 01Federal courts cannot create new legal claims for violations of international norms.
- 02The Torture Victim Protection Act does not allow lawsuits for aiding and abetting torture.
- 03Only Congress has the power to define and create remedies for international law offenses.
Inside the Court
- Opinion by
- Justice Barrett
Why It Matters
This decision limits the power of federal judges to recognize new types of international human rights lawsuits, leaving such decisions to Congress and the President.
Who Is Affected?
U.S. Corporations
Companies are now shielded from lawsuits under these specific statutes for allegedly assisting foreign governments in human rights violations.
Human Rights Litigants
Victims of international crimes must now look solely to Congress to pass new laws if they wish to sue for aiding and abetting abuses.
What Happened?
Practitioners of the Falun Gong religious movement sued Cisco Systems and its executives. They alleged that Cisco developed surveillance technology specifically designed to help the Chinese government identify, track, and torture them. The plaintiffs relied on the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) to argue that the company aided and abetted these human rights abuses. A lower court originally dismissed the case, but an appeals court later allowed it to move forward.
Legal Question
Does the Alien Tort Statute allow courts to create new types of lawsuits for aiding and abetting international crimes, and does the Torture Victim Protection Act cover those who assist in torture rather than committing it directly?
Why the Court Ruled This Way
In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Barrett, the Court held that federal courts lack the authority to create new causes of action under the ATS. The Court reasoned that because these cases involve sensitive foreign policy and the separation of powers, only Congress has the constitutional power to define such offenses and create remedies. Regarding the TVPA, the Court held that the law's silence on 'aiding and abetting' means it does not apply to those who are one or more steps removed from the actual torture. The Court emphasized that its previous openness to judicial creativity in this area was a 'fiction' that it now explicitly rejected.
Arguments in Favor
Supporters of the ruling argue that the Constitution gives Congress, not the courts, the power to define and punish offenses against international law. They contend that judges are poorly equipped to handle cases that could damage the nation's delicate foreign relationships.
Arguments Against
Critics argue that this decision leaves victims of horrific human rights abuses without a way to hold those who provide the necessary tools for persecution accountable. They worry the Court has effectively shut the door on using U.S. courts to uphold global human rights standards.
Timeline
1789
Alien Tort Statute (ATS) enacted
The First Congress granted federal courts jurisdiction over torts committed in violation of the law of nations.
1980
Filartiga v. Pena-Irala decided
A federal appeals court sparked a new era of litigation by allowing a human rights suit under the ATS.
2004
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain decided
The Supreme Court suggested a narrow door might remain open for courts to recognize new international law claims.
June 2026
Supreme Court Decision
The Court officially closed the door on judicially created claims and ruled against aiding-and-abetting liability.
What This Means for Everyday Americans
This ruling means that if a U.S. company sells software or equipment to a foreign country that then uses it to harm its own citizens, those citizens generally cannot sue the company in U.S. courts under these specific human rights laws. It shifts the responsibility for regulating corporate roles in foreign human rights issues from the court system to Congress and the President. For most Americans, it reinforces the idea that foreign policy is handled by elected officials rather than judges. It also provides more legal certainty for companies doing business abroad, even in countries with poor human rights records.
What Happens Next?
The case will be sent back to the lower courts with instructions to dismiss the claims against Cisco and its executives. The ruling effectively ends this line of litigation unless Congress passes a new law specifically authorizing lawsuits for aiding and abetting international human rights violations.
Explain It Like I'm 12
Imagine if a company made a specialized lock that a bad government used to trap innocent people. The people who were trapped tried to sue the company in an American court. The Supreme Court said no, because the law didn't specifically say you could sue the 'helper' of the bad government. The judges also said they don't have the power to make up new rules for these kinds of international problems. Instead, they said that only Congress—the people we vote for—can decide if it's okay to sue companies for helping other countries do bad things. This keeps the courts from getting involved in complicated arguments between the U.S. and other nations.
Broader Context
The decision builds on previous rulings like Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain and Jesner v. Arab Bank to further restrict the reach of the Alien Tort Statute. It clarifies that the Court will no longer allow the possibility of new judicially created claims for international law violations in U.S. courts.
Key Players
Cisco Systems, Inc.
The technology company accused of providing the Chinese government with specific surveillance tools used for persecution.
Doe I, et al.
The anonymous plaintiffs and practitioners of the Falun Gong religious movement who brought the lawsuit.