Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe · ¶115

The majority wraps up its discussion of Sosa by asserting that “it is hard to see how correcting Sosa’s unfulfilled prediction would upset reliance interests” because “it is a stretch to believe that we ever would have” found an implied right of action under Sosa. Ante, at 11. The majority, however, overlooks the 107 other federal courts. Many of them fulfilled this Court’s prediction by finding implied causes of action under the ATS in individual cases, just as the First Congress intended. Those courts were not “‘indulg[ing a] fiction.’” Ibid. Rather, they were dutifully applying this Court’s decision in Sosa, and their decisions are proof that Sosa “‘operated in practice.’” Ante, at 11. It is therefore unclear what the majority means when it says that Sosa’s promise went unfulfilled, or that no one, not even the plaintiffs who sued under the ATS, was entitled to rely on it.

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.