Nearly 240 years after Congress enacted the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which permits foreign individuals to file lawsuits in U.S. courts for severe breaches of international law, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to consider arguments in Cisco Systems v. Doe. This case will define whether corporations can be held accountable as accomplices in international law violations. The plaintiffs, including Chinese and U.S. citizens, seek to hold Cisco responsible under the ATS for its alleged role in assisting the Chinese government with a surveillance system used against Falun Gong practitioners.
- Historical Context: The ATS gained modern significance in 1980, when Filartiga v. Pena-Irala allowed Paraguayan plaintiffs to bring a case against a Paraguayan official for human rights violations. This established the statute’s potential to address international human rights abuses (see U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit decision).
- Recent Court Decisions: Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have imposed limits on the ATS. For example, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain ruled the statute primarily grants jurisdiction, not a cause of action, and stated only specific, accepted international norm violations would qualify (decision link).
- Scope Limitations: The court further narrowed ATS applicability in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., requiring U.S.-based conduct for claims, and in Jesner v. Arab Bank, ruling against ATS lawsuits targeting foreign corporations.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided that the aiding-and-abetting claims against Cisco could proceed, sparking a Supreme Court review. Cisco argues that creating additional causes of action under the ATS should be a congressional prerogative, challenging whether aiding-and-abetting liability exists without explicit legislative authorization, as earlier noted in Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver (decision link).
The plaintiffs counter that aiding and abetting has been historically recognized as a violation of international law, citing modern tribunals like the Nuremberg and Rwanda tribunals as evidence. They argue that prohibiting these claims undermines the ATS’s intent to provide remedies for international law violations. Additionally, they assert that Cisco’s activities support U.S. foreign policy by deterring complicity in foreign persecution, arguing that earlier ATS restrictions already minimized any adverse implications.
The Supreme Court’s decision will significantly influence the future applicability of the ATS, particularly regarding corporate liability in international human rights cases. For further information, the full details can be accessed on SCOTUSblog.