⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Supreme Court considers whether people may sue a company accused of helping foreign officials commit torture and other violations of international law. Falun Gong practitioners allege that Cisco designed surveillance tools in the United States that helped Chinese authorities identify practitioners for detention and torture. The Alien Tort Statute gives federal courts jurisdiction over suits by noncitizens for violations of the law of nations, but creates no express cause of action. In Sosa, the Court left a narrow path for judges to recognize an international-law claim if its rule was definite and widely accepted and if creating the claim was prudent. The Torture Victim Protection Act expressly permits suits for torture and extrajudicial killing, but does not mention aiding and abetting. Cisco and the United States say Congress must expressly authorize that secondary liability. The plaintiffs say aiding and abetting is part of international law and that the word subjects reaches those who substantially assist torture. The Ninth Circuit allowed both theories. After this argument, the Supreme Court reversed. By six to three, it closed Sosa's door to new Alien Tort Statute claims. By eight to one, it held that the Torture Victim Protection Act does not cover aiding and abetting.

Cisco Systems v. Doe I (No. 24-856) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued April 28, 2026.