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.
The Supreme Court’s grant in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I marks a pivotal moment for international human rights litigation in U.S. courts. The Court accepted Questions 1 and 3, leaving the mens rea question aside for now. The central issue is whether courts may imply a private aiding-and-abetting cause of action under the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act. The answer will determine whether American corporations face civil liability for allegedly facilitating foreign governments’ human rights abuses.
Respondents, identified as Chinese Falun Gong practitioners, allege that Cisco provided surveillance technology that enabled Chinese authorities to track and persecute them. The Ninth Circuit allowed the claims to proceed, finding aiding-and-abetting liability cognizable under both statutes.
Cisco and its amici, including the Chamber of Commerce and the United States government, contend that implying secondary liability requires affirmative congressional authorization that neither statute provides. SCOTUSBlog’s case page notes the government’s amicus brief supporting petitioners. Respondents counter that aiding-and-abetting liability is embedded in customary international law and therefore cognizable under the ATS’s original framework.
The decision will reshape the landscape of corporate accountability for transnational human rights violations. A ruling against implied secondary liability would effectively close U.S. courts to a broad category of claims. Practitioners and scholars tracking this area should also follow related statutory interpretation developments at SCOTUSGate. Oral argument is scheduled for April 28, 2026, with Paul Lindsey Hoffman arguing for respondents and Christopher George Michel for Cisco.