The Supreme Court dealt a significant blow to human-rights litigation against technology companies, ruling that the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) does not authorize lawsuits claiming aiding and abetting foreign repression. The justices decided against allowing Falun Gong practitioners to pursue claims that Cisco Systems helped the Chinese government surveil and persecute them using advanced surveillance tools.
This case centered on allegations that Cisco knowingly assisted China’s authorities by designing, supporting, and maintaining customized surveillance systems integrated into the government’s “Golden Shield” network—a vast apparatus used for censorship, tracking, and detaining individuals. The plaintiffs, including 14 unnamed Falun Gong members and one U.S. citizen, argued that Cisco’s technology facilitated increased government crackdowns after China banned the spiritual movement.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I overturned a lower court’s decision that had allowed the lawsuit to proceed to discovery. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, emphasized that the ATS, enacted in 1789, does not provide grounds to create a new cause of action for aiding and abetting human-rights abuses abroad. The opinion framed the ATS as a narrowly tailored statute with a limited historic scope rather than a broad tool for modern international human-rights claims.
In addition, the Court ruled 8-1 that the Torture Victim Protection Act does not permit monetary damages claims against Cisco executives accused of complicity in torture. This ruling further restricts avenues for victims seeking legal redress in U.S. courts for foreign government abuses tied to American companies.
The decision marks a setback for advocates who have used U.S. law to hold corporations accountable for their role in overseas repression. It clarifies that future litigation under the ATS must adhere strictly to its original, narrowly defined parameters. Plaintiffs may still bring claims aligned with historical uses of the statute, but they cannot push courts to extend its reach into new forms of liability involving U.S.-based technology firms operating globally.