In a landmark decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I that the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) no longer permits courts to create new causes of action for human rights violations, effectively barring plaintiffs from suing technology companies for aiding abuses under this law.
- The ATS allows foreign plaintiffs to sue in US courts for international law violations.
- Supreme Court's ruling prohibits new ATS-based claims against corporations.
- Case involved allegations against Cisco's role in China's surveillance of Falun Gong.
What happened
The US Supreme Court delivered a decisive ruling in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I, closing the door on expanding the Alien Tort Statute to cover new claims. The court held that federal courts cannot create new causes of action under the ATS beyond the historically recognized offenses of safe conduct violations, ambassador rights infringements, and piracy. This ruling overturned the previous understanding from the 2004 Sosa decision, which had left room for recognizing modern international law claims that are specific, universal, and obligatory.
The case concerned plaintiffs who accused Cisco of contributing to human rights abuses by helping build China’s 'Golden Shield' surveillance system used to detain and torture members of the Falun Gong religious group. Despite the Ninth Circuit previously allowing the case to proceed, the Supreme Court ruled that aiding and abetting liability under the ATS does not exist, leading to dismissal of these claims.
Why it matters
This Supreme Court decision significantly restricts foreign nationals’ ability to seek justice in US courts for human rights abuses allegedly perpetrated or enabled by corporations. The ATS was one of the few legal tools available to hold companies accountable for complicity in abuses abroad, particularly in cases involving technology firms providing surveillance or other services to authoritarian regimes.
By firmly closing the judicially created ATS liability, the court defers entirely to Congress to define any future scope of corporate accountability under international law. This signals a higher barrier for victims pursuing redress from multinational companies in US courts and may reduce corporate incentives to avoid involvement in such abuses.
What to watch next
Advocates and legal experts will look to Congress as the next potential venue for restoring or reforming mechanisms allowing victims of human rights abuses to sue corporations in US courts. Legislation may be necessary to reinstitute robust corporate accountability standards that go beyond the constrained judicial interpretation now established.
Meanwhile, companies involved in providing technology or services linked to authoritarian surveillance and repression will face reduced liability risks in the US legal system under the ATS. Global digital rights groups and international human rights organizations may seek alternative forums and strategies to hold such entities accountable, including other jurisdictions or international bodies.