Supreme Court All But Ends Corporate Liability for Aiding-and-Abetting Human Rights Abuses

Until the end of June, multinational companies faced a significant litigation risk: suits in U.S. federal courts alleging that they aided-and-abetted human rights abuses committed by foreign governments—even when the alleged conduct occurred entirely overseas—under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA). These cases are costly to defend and can drag on for years, regardless of their merits.

The U.S. Supreme Court has now largely closed that door. In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I, 609 U.S. __ (June 23, 2026), the Court held that federal courts have no authority to create new private causes of action under the ATS, and that the TVPA does not extend to aiding-and-abetting claims. The decision significantly curtails the ability of plaintiffs to pursue human rights claims in U.S. courts against corporations—including U.S. companies—whose products or services allegedly facilitated international law abuses by foreign governments or other actors.

For companies operating in regions prone to terrorism and armed conflict, the ruling provides greater legal certainty, reducing the risk that their commercial activities in high-risk jurisdictions will expose them to open-ended ATS litigation in U.S. courts.

Background

For decades, plaintiffs have primarily relied on two federal statutes to bring cases against companies for foreign conduct: 

• The ATS, enacted in 1789, grants federal courts jurisdiction over civil actions brought by non-citizens for torts committed in violation of the “law of nations.” 28 U.S.C. § 1350. In Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004), the Supreme Court held that the ATS is a jurisdictional statute and does not, by itself, create any causes of action. However, Sosa left the door open for courts to potentially recognize new claims under a two-step test: first, identifying an international norm as “specific, universal, and obligatory” as the three offenses understood to be actionable in the 18th century: piracy, infringement of the rights of ambassadors, and violation of safe conducts (referred to as the Blackstone Three); and second, determining whether creating a cause of action is “prudent” absent action by the political branches.
• The TVPA, enacted in 1992, allows plaintiffs to sue individuals who “subject” others to torture or extrajudicial killing under the authority of a foreign nation. 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note. 

In Cisco Systems, practitioners of the Falun Gong religious movement brought suit against Cisco in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that Cisco and two of its executives aided-and-abetted human rights abuses by the Chinese government. The plaintiffs claimed that Cisco knowingly built and maintained a sophisticated surveillance system that enabled Chinese authorities to identify, detain, and torture them in violation of international law. 

The district court initially dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit in 2014, concluding that the aiding-and-abetting liability is actionable under the ATS but not the TVPA. In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that aiding-and-abetting claims could proceed under both the statutes. 

The Supreme Court’s Decision

In a 6-3 majority opinion authored by Justice Barrett, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit ruling, holding that both the ATS and TVPA claims against Cisco and its executives must be dismissed.

The Alien Tort Statute

The Court “close[d] the door that Sosa cracked,” holding that federal courts may not create new causes of action—such as aiding-and-abetting—under the ATS. The majority concluded that doing so would intrude on Congress’s authority to fashion new theories of liability—particularly given that the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to “define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations.” Art. I, § 8, cl. 10. The Court explained that judicially created causes of action “offend the separation of powers in almost every circumstance,” so even a single “sound reason” to defer to Congress bars a court-created remedy. In ATS cases, the Supreme Court held, such a reason always exists given the inherent risk of “adverse foreign policy consequences” when courts judge a foreign government’s conduct. The Court also pointed to Congress enacting the TVPA as further reason not to create new causes of action. 

While the Court did not formally overrule Sosa or disturb its assumption that claims for the Blackstone Three remain viable, its ruling in Cisco makes any attempt to satisfy Sosa’s two-step test all but impossible.

The Torture Victim Prevention Act

The Court held that the TVPA does not provide for aiding-and-abetting liability. The Court reasoned that because Congress has expressly imposed such liability in other statutes, its silence in the TVPA was dispositive.

The Dissents

Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented on the majority’s ATS holding. They contended that the Blackstone Three are not enumerated in the text of the ATS and were never intended to be the exclusive causes of action under that statute, and that foreign policy concerns should be weighed on a case-by-case basis rather than used to impose a categorical bar. They also noted that the U.S. Government has publicly condemned China’s treatment of Falun Gong practitioners, undermining the majority’s rationale that a suit would have “adverse foreign policy consequences.”

On the TVPA, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan (but not Justice Jackson) also dissented. They contended that the plain meaning of “subjects” reaches those who “help[ed] make [torture] succeed” and that the majority’s holding conflicts with the TVPA’s judicially endorsed “command responsibility” doctrine, which holds supervisors liable for subordinates’ torture they “knew or should have known” about.

Implications

• Greater legal certainty for companies operating in high-risk jurisdictions.  The ruling lowers the risk of human rights litigation under the ATS and forecloses claims based on allegations of aiding-and-abetting human rights abuses abroad under both the ATS and the TVPA. For companies operating in regions prone to terrorism and instability, this provides a more predictable litigation environment in U.S. federal courts.
• Litigation risk migrates rather than disappears. Plaintiffs may still pursue claims in the United States through other avenues, including other federal statutes, state tort, or foreign law. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), for example, imposes liability for trafficking, forced labor, and the like, and contains an express aiding-and-abetting provision.  18 U.S.C. § 1581 et seq. Companies should not assume that Cisco eliminates human rights litigation exposure entirely.
• Non-litigation pressures remain significant. Plaintiffs and advocacy groups are likely to seek recourse through reputational campaigns, investor pressure, and targeted sanctions. Companies must continue to manage these risks across all jurisdictions in which they operate, regardless of the narrowed litigation landscape in U.S. courts.
• The political branches may respond. By expressly pointing plaintiffs toward Congress, the Court’s decision may spur a political response, potentially leading Congress to amend or supplement the ATS and the TVPA.

Against this backdrop, multinational companies should continue to prioritize robust human rights due diligence, sound compliance frameworks, and continuous monitoring of the legal, regulatory, and reputational environment across the jurisdictions in which they operate.

To receive the latest insights on US legal developments, subscribe to the Freshfields A Fresh Take Blog.