The Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) provides a civil remedy against individuals who subject others to torture or extrajudicial killing. The Court concluded that the law does not extend to aiding-and-abetting liability because Congress did not expressly provide for that form of liability in the statute.
The Allegations Against Cisco
The plaintiffs, practitioners of Falun Gong and people connected to victims, alleged that Chinese authorities persecuted them because of their religious beliefs. They claimed Cisco developed surveillance technology that helped authorities identify, track, and apprehend practitioners.
Their lawsuit argued that Cisco and two company executives could be held liable for allegedly aiding and abetting violations of international law. One plaintiff also brought a claim under the Torture Victim Protection Act against the executives.
Cisco disputed the legal basis for the claims. The case reached the Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed parts of the lawsuit to proceed.
Why the Decision Matters
The ruling limits one route through which foreign plaintiffs have sought compensation in U.S. courts for alleged human rights abuses involving corporate conduct overseas.
The majority emphasized that creating new legal claims is principally a responsibility for Congress, rather than the federal judiciary. It concluded that courts should not use the Alien Tort Statute to establish new forms of liability for violations of international law.
The decision does not mean that every lawsuit involving corporate conduct abroad is barred. Its effect depends on the legal claims asserted and the statutes that apply. It does, however, foreclose the specific theories of liability considered in this case under the ATS and TVPA.
The Justices Were Divided
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, agreed with the Court’s conclusion on the Torture Victim Protection Act but disagreed with its broad ruling on the Alien Tort Statute.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, arguing that the Court had gone too far in restricting the ability of victims to seek remedies for alleged violations of international law.
A Significant Change in Human Rights Litigation
The decision marks an important development in the legal debate over when U.S. courts can hear claims involving alleged abuses committed overseas and the role corporations may play in them.
For plaintiffs seeking damages from companies accused of assisting human rights violations abroad, the ruling closes off the particular legal pathways considered by the Court. Future cases will depend on the wording of applicable statutes, the conduct alleged, and whether Congress creates or expands legal remedies.
The broader question—how victims of international human rights abuses can obtain accountability when alleged wrongdoing crosses national borders—remains a matter of continuing legal and policy debate.