Supreme Court Likely to Side With Cisco Over Human Rights Suit

The US Supreme Court appeared likely to back Cisco Systems Inc.’s push to toss claims it was complicit in China’s torture of members of a religious minority, further narrowing the path for human rights lawsuits against corporations over conduct abroad.

Hearing arguments on Tuesday, the justices grappled with whether the Alien Tort Statute applies to Cisco’s alleged role in developing a surveillance system that facilitated China’s violent crackdown against Falun Gong adherents.

Most of the justices appeared skeptical that the 1789 statute and Supreme Court precedent allowed for private legal actions accusing US corporations of aiding-and-abetting torture.

While the court hasn’t closed the door to relief under the law, the justices have sharply curbed the scope of lawsuits it will entertain. Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether the court was creating a “mousetrap” for litigants to pursue new types of claims.

“Are we masquerading as to where the real responsibility and where your efforts belong? Do they belong in the courts or maybe across the street?” Gorsuch pressed a lawyer for the plaintiffs, in a reference to Congress.

Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito also appeared worried about the foreign policy implications of judges deciding a matter that would offer legal judgments on the Chinese government.

The Alien Tort Statute allows courts to hear non-citizen lawsuits over certain violations of international law. Cisco has argued that the law only applies to a small set of cases dealing with the violation of safe conducts, the infringement of the rights of ambassadors, and piracy.

But it wasn’t clear if the court was willing to explicitly say that it wouldn’t recognize new causes of action under the law. Justice Amy Coney Barrett specifically asked about the viability of a civil conspiracy claim.

‘Golden Shield’

Twelve Chinese nationals and one US citizens claimed in a 2011 lawsuit that Cisco, from its headquarters in California, customized the so-called “Golden Shield” surveillance system that Chinese authorities used to identify, detain, and torture Falun Gong adherents.

Cisco denies allegations of wrongdoing, claiming it supplied “off-the-shelf-technology” that complied with US export regulations.

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit cleared the lawsuit to proceed, however the conservative-led Supreme Court has continually sided with private industry when it’s considered these matters.

In 2021’s Nestle USA Inc. v. Doe , the justices rejected allegations 8-1 that Nestlé SA’s US unit and Cargill Inc. were complicit in the use of child slavery in the Ivory Coast because they lacked a sufficient US connection to proceed.

The Trump administration urged the justices to side with Cisco because of separation of powers and foreign policy concerns. Deputy Solicitor General Curtis Gannon also claimed lower courts had become “too permissive” of new types of claims despite a 2004 decision requiring “vigilant door-keeping.”

That ruling said viable claims must generally rest on whether they’re violations of norms in international law, and that courts must consider the foreign policy implications of its decisions.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared open to permitting the lawsuit against Cisco under that standard.

“We have the Convention Against Torture, of which we’re a member and China is a member and Russia and a whole bunch of other countries,” said Sotomayor. “And that does require nations to ensure that people who are complicit in violations of international law are held responsible.”

Fellow liberal justices, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson also showed an openness to allowing aiding-and-abetting allegations but basing it on a “norm by norm” evaluation.

Corporate Suits

The Alien Tort Statute emerged in recent decades as a vehicle to seek accountability for alleged illegal conduct by corporations. Lawyers for Cisco and the plaintiffs disputed the success rate of those cases. Cisco’s lawyer, Davis Polk & Wardwell partner Kannon Shanmugam, said just six of the roughly 300 cases have resulted in monetary recoveries via a court judgment.

“I’ve been involved personally in more cases than six where we’ve gotten judgments,” Paul Hoffman, a veteran human rights lawyer, shot back during his turn at the lectern.

Hoffman, who’s argued nearly all of the cases the justices have considered on the Alien Tort Statute, said that stopping claims against Cisco would be an “absurd result.”

Under its theory, he argued, Cisco “cannot be held responsible for aiding and abetting these violations no matter how substantial and direct their contributions were.”

The court also considered a separate claim brought against former Cisco CEO and another executive under the Torture Victim Protection Act. which allows civil suits against those who subject another to torture. The key question there is whether the law permits suits over the alleged aiding-and-abetting of torture.

A decision is expected by July.

The case is Cisco v. Doe, U.S., 24-856, argued, 4/28/26.