TRUMP STUNNED! – Supreme Court rules 8-1 that he can…@!
The decision in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe centered on whether Cisco and its executives could be held liable for allegedly aiding Chinese government persecution of Falun Gong practitioners through surveillance technology sales. The case required the justices to interpret the scope of the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. “Today, we close the door that Sosa cracked and hold that courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms,” Barrett wrote, referencing the court’s 2004 precedent in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain.
The majority held that federal judges lack constitutional authority to recognize private causes of action under the Alien Tort Statute and that the 1991 statute does not permit secondary aiding-and-abetting liability. Emphasizing separation of powers, Barrett reasoned that creating new rights of action belongs exclusively to Congress, not the courts. The court determined that allowing unelected judges to recognize tort claims based on evolving international norms risks judicial overreach into foreign policy, a domain the Constitution assigns to the executive and legislative branches.
Unnamed practitioners of Falun Gong sued Cisco after alleging that Chinese authorities subjected them to torture and arbitrary detention aided by the company’s surveillance technology, known as the “Golden Shield” project. A federal district court initially dismissed the complaint, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revived it, ruling that both statutes permitted aiding-and-abetting actions against American entities that knowingly facilitate international law violations. The Supreme Court’s reversal reversed the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning and ended that legal theory entirely.
Business Community Wins Major Victory
The federal government participated in oral arguments supporting Cisco, with the Solicitor General’s office warning that expansive transnational litigation could disrupt diplomacy, invite reciprocal foreign suits against American interests, and discourage U.S. technological innovation abroad. The ruling delivers a win for the multinational business community and aligns with arguments presented by corporate defense counsel. Business groups argued the decision removes prolonged legal uncertainty for technology firms and global manufacturers operating across complex international markets. For decades, corporate defendants had faced costly class actions under the Alien Tort Statute arising from the sovereign actions of foreign governments.
The court’s three liberal justices disagreed sharply with the majority’s restriction on human rights litigation. Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the statute’s text permitting claims against individuals who “subject” victims to abuse naturally includes those who knowingly aid and abet the underlying conduct. “Because the plain text of this statute includes individuals who aid and abet the victim’s torture, I would affirm the Ninth Circuit’s judgment on this score as well,” Sotomayor wrote.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, maintaining that the 1991 statute’s framework was broad enough to reach parties providing material, knowing assistance to state-sponsored torture. The ruling marks a significant milestone in a decades-long conservative effort to curtail transnational human rights suits in American courts. The decision establishes that foreign policy remedies involving corporate conduct abroad must originate through congressional legislation rather than judge-made tort claims.