Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe · ¶37

Since Sosa was decided, we have firmly committed to the view that judicially created causes of action offend the separation of powers in almost every circumstance. As a result, we have virtually eliminated the practice of fashioning them. Our cases have emphasized that “‘[i]f there are sound reasons to think Congress might doubt the efficacy or necessity of a damages remedy, the courts must refrain from creating it.’” Egbert, 596 U. S., at 491 (quoting Ziglar, 582 U. S., at 137; alterations omitted); Jesner, 584 U. S., at 264 (quoting this language). Indeed, “‘[e]ven a single sound reason to defer to Congress is enough.’” Egbert, 596 U. S., at 491 (quoting Nestlé, 593 U. S., at 635 (opinion of THOMAS, J.); emphasis added). In the ATS context, there will always be at least a “single sound reason” to conclude that Congress might not want the judiciary to take the lead. Sosa itself…

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