Cisco Systems v. Doe

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 9 Jan 2026

1. Whether the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting.
2. Whether, if ATS aiding-and-abetting claims are cognizable, mere knowledge rather than purpose suffices to show the requisite mens rea.
3. Whether the Torture Victim Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note, allows a judicially- implied private right of action for aiding and abetting.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case involved claims that Cisco Systems and its executives helped the Chinese government persecute Falun Gong practitioners by developing surveillance technology used to identify and arrest them. The Court, in an opinion by Justice Barrett, held that courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms under the Alien Tort Statute. The Court said Sosa’s approach was narrow from the start, that later separation of powers cases make judicial creation of new damages actions essentially unavailable, and that foreign policy concerns and Congress’s role make this especially true in ATS cases. The Court also held that the Torture Victim Protection Act does not allow aiding-and-abetting liability because the statute does not mention it and its word “subjects” does not extend that far. The judgment was reversed and remanded.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson as to Parts I through III and V. She argued that the majority overruled Sosa without saying so and improperly closed the courthouse doors to ATS claims. In her view, Sosa recognized implied causes of action for certain international law violations, and the same reasoning should allow other well-established norms. She also said the majority ignored history and stare decisis. Justice Jackson also wrote separately, concurring in part and dissenting in part, and would have disagreed with part of the Court’s TVPA ruling.