Show notes
Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-856_kjfm.pdf
Case background
The plaintiffs contend 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. They allege that Cisco and its executives are liable under the
Alien Tort Statute (ATS) for aiding and abetting violations of international
law, and one plaintiff also seeks to hold two Cisco executives liable for
aiding and abetting torture under 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.” In Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, the
Court held that the ATS is a jurisdictional statute creating no new causes of
action, while leaving open a narrow possibility of judicially created causes
of action under a two-step framework; since Sosa, the Court has never created
one. The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint, but the Ninth
Circuit reversed in relevant part, holding that aiding-and-abetting liability
satisfies both steps of the Sosa framework and that the TVPA encompasses claims
against those who aid and abet torture.
Questions Presented
(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 the Torture Victim Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note, allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting.
Holding
Courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international
norms under the ATS. Judicial authority under Sosa’s second step was narrow at
the outset, because ATS cases by their nature implicate foreign policy and the
power to create causes of action belongs to Congress, which the Constitution
expressly empowers to “define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of
Nations.” Since Sosa, the Court has committed to the view that judicially
created causes of action offend the separation of powers in almost every
circumstance, and in the ATS context there will always be at least one sound
reason to defer to Congress. What Sosa made difficult, subsequent legal
developments have made impossible, and because courts cannot create new rights
of action to remedy violations of international law, there is necessarily no
liability for aiding and abetting such violations. The TVPA, which provides a
cause of action against someone who “subjects” another to torture, likewise
does not provide for aiding-and-abetting liability: as in Central Bank of
Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A., the statute’s silence
on aiding and abetting settles the issue. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is
reversed, and the case is remanded.
The Court
Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice
Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined. Justice
Jackson filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in
part, in which Justice Kagan joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting
opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined as to Parts I, II, III,
and V.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe, written by Justice Barrett.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Barrett. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
Stay Connected
