In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe, 609 U.S. ___ (2026), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal courts can’t create new causes of action under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). It further held that neither the ATS nor the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) allows for aiding-and-abetting liability.
Facts of the Case
The plaintiffs alleged that the Chinese Government persecuted them because of their religious beliefs, and that Cisco Systems, Inc. enabled that persecution by developing surveillance technology that allowed China to identify and apprehend them. Plaintiffs specifically allege that Cisco and its executives are liable for aiding and abetting violations of international law, citing the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). One plaintiff also seeks to hold two Cisco executives liable for aiding and abetting violations of the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA).
The ATS grants federal district courts jurisdiction over “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.” The ATS was rarely invoked for two centuries after its enactment. However, in the last few decades, however, litigants have urged courts to allow private rights of action under the ATS for various alleged human rights abuses. In Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, the Court held that “the ATS is a jurisdictional statute creating no new causes of action.” At the same time—and in considerable tension with that point—the Court said that the ATS allows for the possibility of new, judicially created causes of action to enforce norms of international law.
Though Sosa did not “close the door” on judicially created rights of action under the ATS, the Courtemphasized the narrowness of its view and underscored the need for “vigilant door-keeping.” It also proposed a two-step framework for creating those causes of action: First, a plaintiff must show that the norm has a “definite content and acceptance among civilized nations”; second, a plaintiff must show that it would be prudent for the court to create the proposed cause of action when the political branches have not acted. Since Sosa, the Court has never created an ATS right of action.
In this case, the District Court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. The Ninth Circuit focused on whether aiding-and-abetting liability may be imposed under the ATS. At Sosa’s first step, the Ninth Circuit found that “aiding and abetting liability is sufficiently definite and universal to be a viable form of liability under the ATS.” At the second step, it concluded that neither “foreign relations concerns” nor “deference to Congress” supplied a “prudential reason to decline to recognize aiding or abetting liability.” The Ninth Circuit also held that the TVPA “encompasses claims against those who aid and abet torture.”
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court reversed by a vote of 6-3. “Today, we close the door that Sosa cracked and hold that courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms. We also hold that the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, which contains an express cause of action, does not provide for aiding-and-abetting liability,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote on behalf of the majority.
The Court first addressed the ATS. InSosa, the Court had recognized a narrow possibility that federal courts could create causes of action for certain violations of international law, while emphasizing the need for “vigilant door-keeping.” But, as Justice Barrett noted, the Court had never actually created an ATS cause of action sinceSosa.
The majority concluded that courts lack that authority. It emphasized separation-of-powers concerns, reasoning that creating new private causes of action is principally a legislative function. The Court also stressed that ATS claims can implicate foreign relations and foreign policy, areas in which courts should exercise particular caution. Accordingly, the Court held that federal courts may not create new causes of action under the ATS. Because the plaintiffs’ aiding-and-abetting claims depended on such a judicially created cause of action, those claims could not proceed.
The Court reached a similar conclusion under the TVPA, although on different grounds. Unlike the ATS, the TVPA expressly creates a private cause of action for certain acts of torture and extrajudicial killing. The statute, however, does not expressly authorize aiding-and-abetting liability.
Relying in part on Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164 (1994), the majority held that Congress’s failure to include aiding-and-abetting liability was dispositive. “The TVPA nowhere mentions aiding-and-abetting liability, and that silence is enough to settle the issue,” Justice Barrett wrote. The Court therefore rejected the claim that individuals who merely assist in torture can be held liable under the TVPA.
Dissent
Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissent, which was joined in part by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan. Justice Sotomayor argued that the majority’s decision “closes the courthouse doors not just to respondents, but to virtually every future litigant seeking redress for a violation of international law under the ATS.” She added: “It thus overrules Sosa, without even acknowledging that it is doing so. Today’s decision marks yet another low point in this Court’s esteem for its precedents.”
