Episode Details

PART 1: SHOW NOTES

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I | Case No. 24-856 | Docket Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-856.html | Argued: 04/28/2026 | Decided: 06/23/2026

Overview: The Supreme Court ended corporate accountability under two federal human-rights statutes, ruling that courts carry no authority to create new Alien Tort Statute lawsuits and that the Torture Victim Protection Act reaches only direct perpetrators — not their corporate enablers.

Question Presented: Whether the ATS and TVPA authorize civil aiding-and-abetting liability against a U.S. technology company that allegedly helped a foreign government torture a religious minority.

Posture: Ninth Circuit reversed dismissal and allowed aiding-and-abetting claims; Supreme Court granted certiorari January 9, 2026.

Main Arguments:

• Cisco (Petitioner):
• (1) Post-Sosa and Egbert precedents stripped courts of authority to create any new ATS cause of action — that power belongs exclusively to Congress;
• (2) Central Bank forecloses implied civil aiding-and-abetting liability absent express statutory text;
• (3) TVPA's "subjects" covers command responsibility only — not remote corporate assistance far removed from custody or physical control of victims.
• Falun Gong Practitioners (Respondents):
• (1) Aiding-and-abetting violations of the law of nations itself violated international law at the Founding — the First Congress built that liability into the ATS;
• (2) Central Bank applied ordinary statutory interpretation, not a blanket clear-statement rule, and both statutes support aiding-and-abetting claims under that same analysis;
• (3) Congress chose the broad verb "subjects" over the narrower "commits" to reach secondary actors — legislative history confirms it.

Holding: Federal courts carry no authority to create new causes of action under the ATS, and the TVPA's "subjects" language does not reach those who aided and abetted torture. Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 6-3. Justice Barrett delivered the majority opinion joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justice Kagan. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson as to Parts I–III and V. Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded.

Opinion: Here

Majority Reasoning:

• (1) Post-Sosa precedents — especially Egbert v. Boule (2022) — establish that creating causes of action belongs exclusively to Congress, eliminating courts' residual ATS common-law authority Sosa described as "slight";
• (2) Central Bank of Denver forecloses implied civil aiding-and-abetting liability absent express congressional text, and neither the ATS nor the TVPA supplies it;
• (3) ATS cases categorically raise foreign policy and separation-of-powers concerns that always counsel deference to Congress — no judicial cause of action survives that constraint.

Separate Opinions:

• Justice Jackson (concurring in judgment in part / dissenting in part, joined by Kagan): Agreed TVPA's "subjects" excludes aiding-and-abetting but rejected the majority's deployment of Central Bank as a magic-words test; dissented from the ATS holding alongside Justice Sotomayor.
• Justice Sotomayor (dissenting, joined by Kagan and Jackson as to Parts I–III and V): Accused the majority of covertly