Justices will determine if tech giants face liability for customizing tools used in foreign religious oppression.
The Supreme Court has granted review in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe to determine if U.S. corporations can be sued for aiding and abetting foreign human rights abuses. The case involves Falun Gong practitioners who allege Cisco Systems customized its “Golden Shield” technology to help the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) track, detain, and torture believers. The plaintiffs assert claims under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA). Cisco argues that these statutes do not explicitly authorize aiding-and-abetting liability and that the Judiciary cannot create such causes of action without Congress. The Ninth Circuit previously allowed the case to proceed using a “knowledge” standard for liability. This ruling will define whether American companies can be held liable for providing technology that facilitates religious persecution abroad.
Case Info
• Case Name: Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe
• Docket Number: No. 24-856 (SCOTUSblog case page link)
• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Status: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Granted on January 9, 2026
Can U.S. companies be held liable for aiding foreign abuses?
The Supreme Court is reviewing whether the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) allow plaintiffs to sue U.S. corporations for aiding and abetting human rights violations. The central legal question is whether federal courts can imply this form of liability when the statutes do not explicitly state it. The Ninth Circuit ruled that such liability exists and requires only that the company “knowingly” assisted the violation. Cisco challenges this, arguing that under Supreme Court precedent, specifically Central Bank, courts cannot create aiding-and-abetting liability unless Congress expressly writes it into law.
Why is this case significant for religious liberty?
This lawsuit centers on the persecution of Falun Gong, a religious movement banned by China in 1999. The plaintiffs allege that the abuses they suffered—including torture and forced labor—were made possible by U.S. technology customized to target their faith. If the Court sides with Cisco, it may become nearly impossible for victims of religious persecution to hold American corporations accountable for facilitating their oppression. If the Court sides with the plaintiffs, it establishes that companies cannot knowingly profit from assisting in the destruction of a religious group.
What are the specific allegations against Cisco Systems?
The plaintiffs allege that Cisco did not merely sell off-the-shelf equipment but customized the “Golden Shield” surveillance system to help the CCP eradicate Falun Gong.
• Customization: Plaintiffs claim Cisco engineers designed “first-of-their-kind features” specifically to detect, apprehend, and interrogate Falun Gong believers.
• Intent: Allegations state that Cisco executives met with CCP officials and marketed their technology specifically for the “douzheng” (violent struggle) against the religious group.
• Internal Documents: The opposition brief cites internal Cisco files describing the persecution campaign as a “lucrative business opportunity”.
• Torture Integration: Plaintiffs allege Cisco integrated databases that provided interrogators with personal data used during torture sessions.
What is Cisco’s defense?
Cisco argues that the ATS is a jurisdictional statute that does not create new causes of action. They contend that judicial creation of aiding-and-abetting liability violates the separation of powers and intrudes on foreign policy, which is the domain of the political branches.
• Statutory Silence: Cisco relies on Central Bank of Denver, arguing that because the ATS and TVPA do not mention “aiding and abetting,” no such liability exists.
• Foreign Policy: Cisco claims that allowing these suits interferes with U.S. trade policy and foreign relations with China.
• Standard of Intent: Cisco argues that even if liability exists, the standard should be “purpose” (specific intent to violate international law), not merely “knowledge”.
How does the opposition respond to the legal challenges?
The respondents argue that aiding and abetting is a “specific, universal, and obligatory” norm of international law, which satisfies the requirements for an ATS claim.
• International Norms: They cite the Nuremberg tribunals and modern international courts to show that accomplice liability is well-established.
• TVPA Text: They argue that the TVPA’s language punishing anyone who “subjects” an individual to torture inherently includes those who aid and abet the act.
• Mens Rea: The plaintiffs assert they meet the stricter “purpose” standard anyway because Cisco specifically customized products to achieve the CCP’s goals in exchange for market access.
What happens next?
The Supreme Court will review the briefs and hold oral arguments. A decision will determine the scope of the ATS and TVPA. The ruling will either affirm the Ninth Circuit’s allowance of the suit or dismiss the claims, potentially closing the door on similar human rights litigation against corporate actors.
Commentary
The distinction between “neutral commerce” and “criminal complicity” is the heart of this dispute. If a company sells a generic knife, they are not liable if it is used for murder. However, if a company customizes a blade specifically to inflict maximum pain on a specific religious minority, the claim of neutrality vanishes. The allegations here suggest the latter. Cisco is accused not just of selling routers but of building a digital panopticon designed for the specific purpose of religious eradication.
Cisco’s reliance on Central Bank is a potent textualist argument. The Supreme Court has been hesitant to expand implied causes of action. If the text does not say “aiding and abetting,” the current conservative majority may be unwilling to read it in. This approach prioritizes legislative supremacy. If Congress wants companies to be liable for aiding torture, Congress must say so.
However, the “knowledge” versus “purpose” debate is equally critical. A “purpose” standard is incredibly difficult to prove. Corporate boards rarely pass resolutions stating, “We intend to violate human rights.” Their purpose is profit. Yet, if the only way to secure a contract is to agree to build a torture tool, the profit motive and the criminal purpose become indistinguishable.
Finally, the foreign policy argument cuts both ways. Cisco warns of diplomatic friction. Yet, the opposition correctly notes that U.S. policy explicitly condemns the persecution of Falun Gong. It is contradictory to argue that holding a U.S. company liable for assisting in recognized human rights abuses violates U.S. foreign policy when the State Department itself has denounced those very abuses.
Citations
• Case Docket: No. 24-856