Key Points:
- The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 28th, 2026 in Cisco Systems v. Doe I, a case which presents the issue of whether victims of human rights abuses can bring claims under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) against those who aided and abetted the abuses.
- Aiding and abetting liability is a universally agreed upon norm of international law. Under binding Supreme Court precedent, it is thus actionable under the ATS. For similar reasons, recognizing claims under the TVPA against abettors gives effect to Congress’s intent to provide a remedy against individuals who “subject” others to torture or extrajudicial killings.
- Cisco’s arguments to the contrary would require overturning Supreme Court precedent and ignoring Congress’s intent in passing the statutes.
- A decision is expected in June.
Today, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case important for holding corporations and their officers accountable for aiding and abetting human rights abuses. The case, Cisco Systems v. Doe I presents two similar but legally distinct issues: whether the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) authorizes claims against those that aid and abet serious human rights violations, and whether the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) permits liability for those who aid and abet torture and extrajudicial killings.
Both statutes have long permitted victims of certain human rights abuses to sue those responsible – including abettors – in U.S. courts. In fact, at EarthRights we have used both statutes for thirty years in many of our major transnational litigation cases against some of the world’s biggest corporations. Our very first case, Doe v. Unocal, filed in 1996, involved claims under the ATS that California-based oil company Unocal had aided and abetted the Burmese military’s human rights violations in the construction of the Yadana gas pipeline. Our lawsuit against Royal Dutch Shell for its role in the torture and execution of Nigerian environmental defenders known as the “Ogoni Nine” in 1995, our suit against Chevron for its role in the Nigerian navy’s violent repression of protests at one of Chevron’s offshore oil platforms in 1998, and our case against Chiquita for financing human rights abuses in the banana-growing region of Colombia between 1997 and 2004, all involved aiding and abetting claims brought under these statutes. Courts have universally held that both statutes permit aiding and abetting liability. But now, Cisco is seeking to upend those precedents.
The Plaintiffs in Cisco are practitioners of the Falun Gong religion in China who were tortured for their religious beliefs. They allege that Cisco, the U.S. network technology company, aided and abetted these abuses by purposely helping China design and implement its “Golden Shield” internet surveillance system to collect information about, and facilitate the violent persecution of Falun Gong adherents.
Since its adoption in 1789, the ATS, which we have written about extensively, has enabled foreign nationals to bring tort claims in U.S. federal courts for violations of “the law of nations.” In the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2004 precedent, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, the Court held that the ATS permits suits for torts committed in violation of universally agreed-upon norms of international law that have developed in the over two-hundred years since the statute was originally adopted, including human rights law. While the Court has in more recent years limited the types of claims that can be brought under the ATS – excluding claims with no nexus to conduct in the United States or brought against foreign corporations – it has never before questioned whether claims could be brought for aiding and abetting.
Cisco claims that it cannot be held liable under the ATS even assuming that all of the allegations that it helped China apprehend Falun Gong believers are true. It makes two arguments. First, it says that the Supreme Court should overturn Sosa v. Alvarez Machain and rule that the ATS only allows for claims in violation of the law of nations as it existed in 1789, and therefore does not permit claims for any human rights abuses at all. But that would eviscerate the statute, ignores over two-hundred years of developments in international law, and is contrary to the ATS drafters’ intent to allow courts to apply the law of nations. Second, Cisco argues that even if the Court is not willing to overturn Sosa, it should break with every court of appeals to address the issue to date and hold that the ATS does not permit aiding and abetting liability under any circumstance. It says the Court should do so merely because recognizing such liability may harm U.S. foreign relations in some circumstances, even though the Government does not suggest it would do so in this case. But since international law clearly recognizes such liability, it is actionable under the statute, and carving out what is tantamount to an immunity for U.S. citizens and corporations that aid and abet abuses risks offending the entire community of nations. There are other legal doctrines to deal with the rare cases that risk threats to foreign relations.
The TVPA, a law passed in 1991, allows for claims in U.S. federal courts against individuals who subjected others to torture or extrajudicial killings. While the Supreme Court has held that the statute only permits claims against natural persons (and not corporations as such), it has never before questioned whether one who aids and abets torture or extrajudicial killings “subjects” others to such violations. Cisco argues that a Supreme Court case from 1994 – three years after the TVPA was passed – where the court declined to interpret a completely unrelated statute to include aiding and abetting liability, means the TVPA should be interpreted in the same way. But there is clear evidence that Congress meant the TVPA to apply not only to those who commit abuses, but also to those who aid and abet them. Interpreting the statute otherwise would fly in the face of Congress’s intent.
EarthRights, together with a coalition of twelve international human rights organizations, submitted an amicus brief in the case. The amicus brief demonstrates that aiding and abetting liability is a fundamental feature of all major legal systems, and thus, is well-recognized as a general principle of law that is part of international law. As such, it is actionable under the ATS, and for similar reasons, should be actionable under the TVPA in order to fulfill the statute’s intent. Katherine Gallagher of the Center for Constitutional Rights was the lead author and counsel on the brief.
Eighteen other amicus briefs were filed in support of the Plaintiffs in the case. Collectively, these amicus briefs demonstrate, among other things, that: the text and purpose of the ATS support aiding and abetting liability; aiding and abetting was a recognized theory of liability for violations of the law of nations when the ATS was adopted; customary international law prohibits aiding and abetting human rights violations; Congress intended to include aiding and abetting liability under the TVPA; recognizing aiding and abetting liability under the ATS and TVPA advances U.S. foreign policy interests and enhances economic efficiencies; and aiding and abetting liability is necessary to eradicate torture, address religious persecution, and hold the technology sector accountable for abuses worldwide.
If the Supreme Court were to decide that claims for aiding and abetting torture and other abuses cannot move forward under these statutes, that would close off two important means of redress for victims of atrocity. But it should not preclude ordinary state law tort claims using similar liability theories. Many of EarthRights’ cases involve these state law tort claims as well, and regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in this case, we will continue to pursue justice using all legal tools available when corporations aid and abet human rights violations.
A decision is expected by late June.
