The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to address a case that could have significant implications for both U.S. and international law. The justices agreed to review Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I, focusing on whether federal laws like the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) allow for private lawsuits against entities accused of aiding and abetting violations of international law.
The ATS permits noncitizens to bring suits in federal court for severe breaches of human rights laws, while the TVPA provides a legal avenue for victims of torture and extrajudicial killings to seek redress in U.S. courts. In this instance, practitioners of the Falun Gong religion in China have filed a suit against Cisco Systems and two of its executives. The lawsuit claims that the company developed and sold a surveillance system to the Chinese government, which was subsequently used to target Falun Gong practitioners.
A divided panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had previously allowed the lawsuit to proceed, leading Cisco to seek the Supreme Court’s intervention. The company argues that these federal laws do not accommodate private plaintiffs bringing aiding and abetting charges. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case follows encouragement from the Trump administration to offer clarity on these legal questions, as detailed in a brief filed at the Supreme Court’s request.
The case is among five granted a hearing on the same day, including Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T and Verizon Communications v. Federal Communications Commission, both set to be argued together. These additional cases revolve around whether the Federal Communications Commission can impose monetary penalties without allowing jury trials and could affect how regulatory penalties are enforced.
The hearing of these cases, expected to occur in April, with decisions likely emerging by late June or early July, marks another step in the court’s handling of complex issues relating to international conduct and regulatory powers. Further details are available on SCOTUSblog.