Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe · ¶122
Finally, the majority’s reliance on Central Bank is misplaced. As discussed above, that case interpreted a statute imposing liability on someone who “‘directly or indirectly’” engaged in proscribed acts. 511 U. S., at 176. That language is narrower than the TVPA’s operative language that extends liability to anyone who “subjects” another to torture. Yet by extending Central Bank in this way, the majority effectively creates a magic-words test and “impose[s] a ‘clarity tax’ on Congress by demanding that it speak unequivocally if it wants to” impose aiding-and-abetting liability. Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U. S. 477, 508 (2023) (BARRETT, J., concurring) (quoting J. Manning, Clear Statement Rules and the Constitution, 110 Colum. L. Rev. 399, 403 (2010)). Even in contexts where this Court requires a clear statement, like waivers of sovereign immunity, this Court has emphasized that “‘no magic…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.