Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe · ¶51

Central Bank is relevant insofar as it instructs that “there is no general presumption” that a statute imposes aiding-and-abetting liability; rather, Congress must provide it. Id., at 182. And here, Congress’s use of the term “subjects” does not do so. But, as JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR discusses, post, at 26–27, the majority is wrong to treat Central Bank as creating a “magic words” test for aiding-and-abetting liability generally. Contra, ante, at 10–11; see Soto v. United States, 605 U. S. 360, 373 (2025) (“[W]e have so often denounced” a “‘magic words’ test”). Instead, the absence of the words “aid” and “abet” in the statute we interpreted in Central Bank was but one consideration of many. See 511 U. S., at 176–180. I therefore concur only in the judgment as to the majority’s TVPA holding.

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