US Supreme Court limits scope of foreign human rights claims

Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday for Cisco Systems in a long-running lawsuit brought by Falun Gong practitioners who said the company helped China build surveillance technology used to track and repress them.

The decision further narrows the Alien Tort Statute, an 1789 law that has been steadily restricted by the court in modern times. It also makes it harder for plaintiffs to bring foreign human-rights cases in U.S. courts when the alleged conduct and the alleged harm are tied to events overseas.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion. She said redress for the alleged abuses may belong in political or international forums, not in U.S. courts.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, arguing that the ruling closes the courthouse doors to nearly every future ATS litigant seeking relief for violations of international law.

The Associated Press reported that the ruling effectively shuts down the Cisco lawsuit.

How the case developed

The lawsuit was filed in 2011 by Falun Gong members who alleged that Cisco helped build or tailor technology for China’s so-called Golden Shield surveillance system. The plaintiffs said the system was used to censor, detain and torture practitioners of the spiritual movement.

The case moved through the lower courts for years and reached the Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit revived at least part of the suit in 2023. Cisco then sought review, and the justices heard argument in late April.

The legal question centered on whether alleged U.S.-based corporate conduct was enough to support liability under the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act for abuses carried out abroad.

What the ruling means

The Alien Tort Statute has long been one of the few possible paths for foreign plaintiffs to seek accountability in U.S. courts for alleged violations of international law. But the Supreme Court has narrowed that path repeatedly since 2004.

Tuesday’s decision strengthens that trend. It signals that claims based on alleged human-rights abuses abroad face steep limits when they depend on conduct outside the United States or on harms tied to foreign government repression.

For companies, the ruling reduces exposure to claims that they aided foreign governments in surveillance, censorship or repression projects. For plaintiffs, it removes another potential forum when the alleged abuse occurred abroad and the underlying conduct is connected to overseas state action.

The allegations and the response

The plaintiffs alleged that Cisco’s technology was tied to China’s repression of Falun Gong practitioners through the Golden Shield system. Earlier reporting said Cisco documents and presentations portrayed Falun Gong material as a threat and described Golden Shield as a commercial opportunity.

Cisco disputed the allegations. AP reported that a company lawyer said Cisco "vigorously disputes those allegations."

The Supreme Court’s ruling does not resolve the factual accusations about the company’s conduct. It decides where claims like this can be heard, and the court’s answer was that U.S. courts are not the right place for this dispute.

Next questions

The decision is likely to influence future ATS and TVPA litigation involving aiding-and-abetting theories, especially where plaintiffs try to connect foreign abuses to corporate conduct in the United States.

It also leaves open broader questions about how lower courts will handle related cases, including whether any narrow path remains for closely linked claims or whether the ATS is now largely unavailable for similar suits.

The case began more than a decade ago, was revived by the Ninth Circuit, and then was rejected by the Supreme Court after full briefing and argument. For now, that appears to leave the Falun Gong plaintiffs without a U.S. court remedy in this litigation.

,