Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe · ¶82

In addition, any potential foreign-policy consequences are further reduced because neither China nor any Chinese instrumentality is a party to the case itself. Rather, the suit is against an American company and focuses primarily on its conduct in the United States. China also could have appeared in this case if it opposed it. It could have filed a brief in this case saying so, just as it did in a previous ATS case that involved China. See Doe v. Qi, 349 F. Supp. 2d 1258, 1264, 1296–1301 (ND Cal. 2004) (noting that, in an ATS suit against Chinese local-government officials, China, “through the United States Department of State, submitted a letter to this Court urging this Court not to assert jurisdiction over the instant cases”). Other foreign states have filed similar materials in other ATS cases. See, e.g., Jesner, 584 U. S., at 271 (citing brief filed by the Hashemite Kingdom of…

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