Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe · ¶121

The majority’s narrow interpretation of the word “subjects” is also incompatible with another form of secondary liability that all agree is covered by the TVPA: command responsibility. See Brief for Petitioners 41; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 31–32. Command responsibility holds superior officers vicariously liable for the actions of their subordinates. It generally requires showing that the superior “knew, or should have known,” that subordinates had or were about to commit torture and “failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures to prevent” it. Chavez v. Carranza, 559 F. 3d 486, 499 (CA6 2009); see Mohamad, 566 U. S., at 458 (approvingly citing Chavez). It requires showing neither “proximate cause” nor that the officer participated in the torture. See Chavez, 559 F. 3d, at 499. That the TVPA extends such attenuated liability to someone who did not participate in…

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