In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court has imposed significant restrictions on the ability of foreigners to pursue legal action in American courts for violations of international law. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, interpreted the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) of 1789, which plaintiffs have historically relied upon for such cases, as allowing lawsuits only in the narrow set of claims that Congress envisioned at the time of its passage. The Court further ruled that the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) of 1991 does not permit lawsuits for aiding and abetting torture.
The case at hand, Cisco Systems v. Doe, involved practitioners of the Falun Gong religion, who alleged that Cisco Systems facilitated their persecution in China by aiding in the development of an online surveillance apparatus known as the “Golden Shield”. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had allowed the aiding-and-abetting claims to proceed, but the Supreme Court overturned this decision.
This ruling continues a judicial trend of narrowing the scope of the ATS. Notably, the Supreme Court had previously limited the statute’s reach in cases such as Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain and Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., setting stringent prerequisites on claims. Furthermore, in Jesner v. Arab Bank, the court barred suits against foreign corporations under the ATS.
The opinion voiced by Justice Barrett reasons that asserting broader judicial authority would impinge on congressional powers and intervene in the nation’s foreign policy conduct. Meanwhile, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent, partially joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, argues that the ruling essentially bars nearly all future litigants from seeking redress under the ATS for violations of international law. Justice Jackson acknowledged agreement on the point that aiding-and-abetting claims cannot proceed under the TVPA, distancing herself from some of the majority’s rationale.
With these decisions, the Supreme Court asserts a constrained view of judicial intervention via the ATS and TVPA, emphasizing the prerogative of Congress and political avenues for addressing international human rights violations. For further details, the full decision is available in a document here. Additional insights on the ramifications of this ruling can be explored in the original article on SCOTUSblog.