Supreme Court Rules for Cisco in Landmark Human Rights Case, Limiting Lawsuits Over Overseas Conduct

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court has narrowed the ability of foreign plaintiffs to pursue certain human rights claims in American courts, ruling in favor of Cisco Systems in a closely watched case involving allegations that surveillance technology helped Chinese authorities persecute members of the Falun Gong religious movement.

In its June 23, 2026, decision in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe, the Court ruled 6–3 that federal courts cannot create new causes of action under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) to address violations of international law. The Court also ruled that the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA) does not provide a separate claim for aiding and abetting torture.

The decision, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and reinforced the majority’s view that creating new legal remedies is primarily the responsibility of Congress, not the federal judiciary.

The ruling could have significant implications for future lawsuits seeking to hold companies and individuals accountable for allegedly assisting human rights abuses abroad.

How the Cisco Human Rights Lawsuit Began

The case arose from claims brought by practitioners of Falun Gong, a spiritual movement whose followers have faced persecution by the Chinese government.

The plaintiffs alleged that Cisco Systems, a California-based technology company, developed and supplied surveillance technology that helped Chinese authorities identify, track, and arrest Falun Gong practitioners. They argued that the company’s technology and alleged assistance contributed to human rights violations, including torture.

These allegations formed the basis of claims under the Alien Tort Statute and, in the case of two Cisco executives, the Torture Victim Protection Act.

Cisco contested the legal basis for holding the company and its executives liable under those statutes. The Supreme Court’s decision addressed whether the plaintiffs could pursue the particular legal claims they had brought; it was not a finding that every underlying allegation had been disproved.