Case: Cisco Systems, Inc., et al. v. Doe I, et al., No. 24-856
Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2025-02-11
Status: Granted
Question 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, 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.
On April 1, 2026, amicus briefs from Former U.N. Special Rapporteurs on Torture, the Estate of Tamar Kedem Siman Tov, and Human Rights First were formally submitted to the Court after earlier filing difficulties. Their participation, alongside briefs from the Uyghur Human Rights Project, Oxfam America, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, reflects the range of interests at stake. The 27 amicus filings span human rights advocates, technology policy groups, and international law scholars, signaling that the Court’s resolution will carry weight well beyond the parties.
Plaintiffs brought claims under the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act, arguing that Cisco’s conduct constituted aiding and abetting serious human rights violations. Cisco sought certiorari, and the Court granted review.
The three questions presented address unresolved issues that have divided lower courts for years. The Court has never squarely held whether the ATS supports aiding-and-abetting liability, and the mens rea question—whether “knowledge” or “purpose” is required—has produced a circuit split. A ruling that purpose is required would substantially narrow corporate liability under the ATS. A ruling that no aiding-and-abetting theory exists at all would effectively foreclose a large category of human rights litigation in U.S. courts.
The presence of amici representing both technology accountability and international human rights perspectives suggests the Court is aware that its answer will shape corporate conduct and litigation strategy for years. Full case details are available on the Supreme Court docket and at Oyez.