Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe

Docket Number: 24-856
Citation: 609/1
Term: October Term 2025
Argued: April 28, 2026
Decided: June 23, 2026
Lower Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Author: Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Concurring: Amy Coney Barrett, John G. Roberts, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh
Dissenting: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson

AI-Generated Summary

Case Information:

Case Name: Cisco Systems, Inc., et al. v. Doe et al.
Docket Number: No. 24–856
Dates: Argued April 28, 2026—Decided June 23, 2026
Lower Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Facts of the Case:

Plaintiffs, practitioners of Falun Gong, allege that the Chinese Government persecuted them for their religious beliefs and that Cisco Systems, Inc., enabled the persecution by developing surveillance technology that allowed China to identify, track, and apprehend them. Plaintiffs brought claims under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) alleging that Cisco and its executives aided and abetted violations of international law, including torture, cruel treatment, forced labor, arbitrary detention, crimes against humanity, extrajudicial killing, and forced disappearance. One plaintiff, a U.S. citizen, also asserted a claim under the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA) against two Cisco executives for aiding and abetting torture.

The District Court dismissed the complaint. The Ninth Circuit reversed in relevant part, holding that aiding-and-abetting liability is available under both the ATS and the TVPA. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Legal Issues Presented:

Whether courts may create new causes of action under the ATS for aiding and abetting violations of international law norms.
Whether the TVPA, which provides a cause of action against an individual who “subjects” another to torture, encompasses aiding-and-abetting liability.

The case involves statutory interpretation of the ATS (28 U.S.C. §1350) and the TVPA (note following 28 U.S.C. §1350). The parties disputed the scope of judicial authority to recognize implied rights of action under the ATS and the proper construction of the TVPA’s text.

The Court's Decision (Main Opinion):

Author & Type: Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh (Majority opinion).
Holding: Courts may not create new causes of action under the ATS for violations of international norms. The TVPA does not provide for aiding-and-abetting liability.
Legal Reasoning: The ATS is strictly jurisdictional and creates no new causes of action. Although Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (542 U.S. 692) left open a narrow possibility for judicially created ATS actions, subsequent developments in separation-of-powers doctrine have made that possibility nonexistent. Judicial creation of causes of action intrudes on Congress’s authority, especially in an area implicating foreign policy and where the Constitution assigns Congress the power to define and punish offenses against the law of nations. The TVPA’s use of “subjects” does not encompass aiding-and-abetting liability, consistent with Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A. (511 U.S. 164), because the statute does not expressly mention aiding and abetting and its text requires a direct causal connection.
Disposition: Reversed and remanded.

Concurring Opinion(s) (if any):

Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justice Kagan. She agreed with the majority’s holding that the TVPA does not provide for aiding-and-abetting liability but joined Justice Sotomayor’s analysis of the ATS.

Dissenting Opinion(s) (if any):

Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson as to Parts I–III and V. She argued that Sosa remains good law, that the ATS permits judicial recognition of aiding-and-abetting liability when international norms are sufficiently definite and universal, and that the TVPA’s text encompasses aiding-and-abetting liability. She contended that the majority effectively overruled Sosa without sufficient justification under stare decisis.

Potential Significance:

The decision eliminates any remaining authority for federal courts to recognize new implied causes of action under the ATS, including for aiding and abetting, and confines the statute to its jurisdictional function while preserving only the narrow set of claims corresponding to the historical paradigms identified in Sosa. It also establishes that the TVPA does not extend to secondary liability.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Key terms: Religious Persecution, Corporate Liability, Human Rights Violations