WASHINGTON — In a landmark ruling sharply curtailing the extraterritorial reach of the federal judiciary, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 on Tuesday that foreign plaintiffs cannot deploy historic tort statutes to hold American corporations liable for allegedly aiding and abetting human rights violations on foreign soil.
The decision in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe delivers a decisive victory to multinational technology firms, effectively shutting the door on decades of high-stakes corporate litigation rooted in international law.
Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett held that federal courts exceed their constitutional authority when recognizing private rights of action under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) of 1789, and affirmed that the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) of 1991 contains no statutory basis for secondary aiding-and-abetting liability. Barrett was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
“Today, we close the door that Sosa cracked and hold that courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms,” Barrett wrote, referencing the court’s foundational 2004 precedent in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain. “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.”
Silicon Valley in Foreign Crosshairs
The long-running dispute was initiated by anonymous practitioners of Falun Gong, a spiritual movement outlawed by the Chinese Communist Party. Claimants alleged they endured brutal detention, surveillance, and torture orchestrated by Beijing authorities, asserting that San Jose-based Cisco Systems and its executive team knowingly customized and supplied critical networking infrastructure—known as the “Golden Shield” project—to facilitate state-sponsored persecution.
Although a federal district court originally dismissed the suit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit later revived the case, finding that domestic corporations could face secondary liability under customary international norms.
Reversing that appellate judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized constitutional separation of powers. Barrett noted that crafting private remedies for international conduct remains an exclusive prerogative of Congress, cautioning that judicial overreach in such matters risks interfering with foreign diplomacy and national security—portfolios explicitly assigned to the executive and legislative branches.
The ruling aligns with arguments presented by the U.S. Solicitor General, who urged the court to insulate domestic companies from sprawling overseas liability that could chill technological exports and invite retaliatory foreign litigation against American entities.
Liberal Wing Warns of Closed Courthouse Doors
The high court’s three liberal justices issued forceful dissents, arguing that the majority had dismantled vital legal avenues designed to hold corporate entities accountable for egregious atrocities.
In her principal dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined in key sections by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, accused the majority of abandoning established precedent and effectively neutralizing the ATS as a vehicle for international justice. Addressing the TVPA, Sotomayor argued that liability for those who “subject” individuals to torture naturally encompasses knowing, material accomplices.
Justice Jackson penned a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, warning that stripping secondary liability from statutory torture protections severely undermines congressional intent to deter state-backed human rights violations.
