The ruling limits the scope of two statutes that have long been used to bring claims against American companies for their operations abroad. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
The case involved claims by unnamed Falun Gong practitioners alleging that Cisco Systems and its executives aided Chinese government persecution by selling networking equipment used in surveillance. The Ninth Circuit had allowed the claims to proceed, but the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision.
“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. “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,” she added.
The ruling eliminates the possibility that courts can invent new legal theories to hold American companies liable for conduct they did not directly commit. Barrett emphasized the principle of separation of powers, writing that “the power to create causes of action belongs to Congress” and that “creating any cause of action is an extraordinary act that places great stress on the separation of powers.”
She noted that the Alien Tort Statute is jurisdictional only and warned against courts inventing liability that risks “adverse foreign policy consequences.”
The Trump administration strongly supported taking the case and backed Cisco, with the Solicitor General participating in oral argument to urge the Court to reject what it characterized as judicial overreach that exposes American firms to unpredictable foreign-policy litigation.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Justice Elena Kagan. She agreed on narrowing the Alien Tort Statute but argued the Torture Victim Protection Act’s text could encompass aiding and abetting in some cases.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented more broadly, joined by Kagan and Jackson in key parts. She claimed the majority “jettisons two decades of settled precedent” and warned it “forecloses future reliance on Sosa and shuts the courthouse doors to almost any claimed violation of international law under the ATS.” On the Torture Victim Protection Act, Sotomayor stated: “Because the plain text of this statute includes individuals who aid and abet the victim’s torture, I would affirm the Ninth Circuit’s judgment on this score as well.”
The decision prevents private plaintiffs and foreign interests from using U.S. courts to bring expansive claims against American companies for alleged involvement in international human rights violations. Companies operating abroad will no longer face the prospect of lawsuits based on implied liability for aiding and abetting conduct they did not directly undertake.
The ruling reflects the Court’s application of textualist and originalist principles, limiting judicial power to create remedies for violations of international law. By restricting the scope of these two statutes, the decision affirms that Congress, not courts, holds the authority to establish new causes of action and shape foreign policy through litigation.
