PART 1: SHOW NOTES
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I | Case No. 24-856 | Docket Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-856.html | Argued: 04/28/2026 | Decided: 06/23/2026
Overview: The Supreme Court ended corporate accountability under two federal human-rights statutes, ruling that courts carry no authority to create new Alien Tort Statute lawsuits and that the Torture Victim Protection Act reaches only direct perpetrators — not their corporate enablers.
Question Presented: Whether the ATS and TVPA authorize civil aiding-and-abetting liability against a U.S. technology company that allegedly helped a foreign government torture a religious minority.
Posture: Ninth Circuit reversed dismissal and allowed aiding-and-abetting claims; Supreme Court granted certiorari January 9, 2026.
Main Arguments:
- Cisco (Petitioner):
- (1) Post-Sosa and Egbert precedents stripped courts of authority to create any new ATS cause of action — that power belongs exclusively to Congress;
- (2) Central Bank forecloses implied civil aiding-and-abetting liability absent express statutory text;
- (3) TVPA’s “subjects” covers command responsibility only — not remote corporate assistance far removed from custody or physical control of victims.
- Falun Gong Practitioners (Respondents):
- (1) Aiding-and-abetting violations of the law of nations itself violated international law at the Founding — the First Congress built that liability into the ATS;
- (2) Central Bank applied ordinary statutory interpretation, not a blanket clear-statement rule, and both statutes support aiding-and-abetting claims under that same analysis;
- (3) Congress chose the broad verb “subjects” over the narrower “commits” to reach secondary actors — legislative history confirms it.
Holding: Federal courts carry no authority to create new causes of action under the ATS, and the TVPA’s “subjects” language does not reach those who aided and abetted torture. Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Voting Breakdown: 6-3. Justice Barrett delivered the majority opinion joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justice Kagan. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson as to Parts I–III and V. Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Opinion: Here
Majority Reasoning:
- (1) Post-Sosa precedents — especially Egbert v. Boule (2022) — establish that creating causes of action belongs exclusively to Congress, eliminating courts’ residual ATS common-law authority Sosa described as “slight”;
- (2) Central Bank of Denver forecloses implied civil aiding-and-abetting liability absent express congressional text, and neither the ATS nor the TVPA supplies it;
- (3) ATS cases categorically raise foreign policy and separation-of-powers concerns that always counsel deference to Congress — no judicial cause of action survives that constraint.
Separate Opinions:
- Justice Jackson (concurring in judgment in part / dissenting in part, joined by Kagan): Agreed TVPA’s “subjects” excludes aiding-and-abetting but rejected the majority’s deployment of Central Bank as a magic-words test; dissented from the ATS holding alongside Justice Sotomayor.
- Justice Sotomayor (dissenting, joined by Kagan and Jackson as to Parts I–III and V): Accused the majority of covertly overruling Sosa without stare decisis analysis; argued “subjects” covers corporate complicity in torture; flagged the logical contradiction of preserving the Blackstone three while eliminating all other ATS implied claims.
Implications:
- (1) American companies now face near-zero civil exposure in U.S. courts for knowingly helping foreign governments commit human rights abuses;
- (2) Torture and atrocity victims must pursue accountability through Congress or the political branches — federal courts stepped out;
- (3) Congress must enact express aiding-and-abetting liability before courts reenter this territory.
The Fine Print:
- Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”
- Torture Victim Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note, § 2(a)(1): “An individual who, under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation — subjects an individual to torture shall, in a civil action, be liable for damages to that individual.”
Primary Cases:
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004): Courts retain “narrow” authority to recognize new ATS causes of action for international-law violations meeting a strict two-step specificity test — authority the majority now declares nonexistent.
- Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A. (1994): Civil aiding-and-abetting liability under a federal statute requires Congress to expressly provide for it; statutory silence implies nothing.
Oral Advocates:
- Petitioners (Cisco Systems): Kannon K. Shanmugam of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
- Respondents (Doe I, et al.): Paul L. Hoffman of Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman, LLP
- Amicus Curiae (United States): Curtis E. Gannon of the Department of Justice