Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe
609 U. S. ___ (2026) · 6/23/26
Courts may not create new rights of action to remedy violations of international law under the Alien Tort Statute; neither the ATS nor the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 imposes liability for aiding-and-abetting offenses.
Edition: slip opinion
Voices: Syllabus — prepared by the Reporter of Decisions · Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court. · Justice Scalia would have stopped there. Id., at 743–744 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). · Justice Jackson, with whom Justice Kagan joins, con curring in judgment in part and dissenting in part. · Per Curiam
Plaintiffs contend that the Chinese Government persecuted them because of their religious beliefs, and that Cisco Systems, Inc. enabled that persecution by developing surveillance technology that allowed China to identify and apprehend them. Plaintiffs allege that Cisco and its executives are liable for aiding and abetting violations of international law, citing the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). One plaintiff also seeks to hold two Cisco executives liable for aiding and abetting violations of the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA). The ATS grants federal district courts jurisdiction…
Held: 1. Courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms under the ATS. Pp. 7–12. Two points drive the Court’s decision. First, judicial authority under Sosa’s second step was “narrow at the outset.” Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe, 593 U. S. 628, 636 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Sosa instructed federal courts to exercise “great caution in adapting the law of nations to private rights,” 542 U. S., at 728, and to assess the “practical consequences” of creating new liability under the ATS, including the “risks of adverse foreign policy consequences.” Id., at 728, 732–733.…Read it in the reading room ›