Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe, Docket No. 24-856

Listen to the episode On Spotify on Apple Podcasts or on YouTube

The Supreme Court has ruled that companies cannot be sued under federal law for knowingly providing the tools and technology that governments use to identify, arrest, and torture religious minorities. The case involved Cisco Systems, accused of selling surveillance technology to China that helped authorities persecute Falun Gong practitioners. The ruling means victims of state-sponsored torture have lost a crucial legal avenue for justice.

What Happened

Falun Gong practitioners sued Cisco Systems, claiming the company designed and sold surveillance technology called the "Golden Shield" to the Chinese government. That system allegedly helped authorities identify, track, arrest, and torture thousands of religious minorities. The plaintiffs used two federal laws to bring their case. The first, the Alien Tort Statute from 1789, allows foreign nationals to sue in U.S. courts for serious violations of international law. The second, the Torture Victim Protection Act, lets torture victims sue those responsible for their abuse.

A federal appeals court allowed the case to proceed. But the Supreme Court reversed that decision on both counts, effectively closing the courthouse door to these victims.

The Court's Reasoning

Justice Barrett, writing for six justices, made two key rulings. First, she said courts cannot recognize any new types of claims under the Alien Tort Statute beyond a tiny handful of offenses recognized centuries ago. The majority worried that allowing new claims would interfere with foreign policy decisions that belong to Congress and the President.

Second, on the torture law, the Court said the word "subjects" in the statute means only those who directly commit torture can be sued. Someone who knowingly provides the technology or tools that make torture possible falls outside the law's reach. This means Cisco, even if it knowingly helped enable torture, cannot be held liable.

The Dissenters' Concerns

Justice Sotomayor wrote a sharp dissent, joined largely by Justices Kagan and Jackson. She argued the majority essentially rewrote a prior Supreme Court decision without admitting it. She pointed to historical evidence showing the Alien Tort Statute was always meant to cover more than just a handful of ancient offenses.

On the torture law, Sotomayor highlighted a striking contradiction in the majority's logic. Everyone agrees the law covers a military commander who fails to stop subordinates from torturing prisoners. Yet the majority excludes someone who actively provided the actual tools used to carry out torture. That, she argued, gets justice exactly backwards. She also noted the U.S. government had already publicly condemned China's persecution of Falun Gong, so this lawsuit would not actually harm American foreign relations.

What This Means for Torture Victims

The practical impact is significant. Under this ruling, torture victims can only sue those who directly commit torture or give direct orders to torture. They cannot sue companies or individuals who knowingly provide the surveillance systems, technology, or other means that make torture possible. This creates a gap in accountability: the technology companies and suppliers that enable state torture can operate with legal immunity in U.S. courts.

The decision reflects a broader tension in law. The majority prioritized keeping courts out of foreign policy decisions. But as the dissenters pointed out, refusing to provide a legal remedy also affects foreign policy. The founders understood that protecting victims of abuse was itself an important foreign policy value. The Court's decision prioritizes one concern over the other without fully explaining why.