A federal district court initially dismissed the lawsuit. The Ninth Circuit subsequently revived portions of the case, concluding that aiding-and-abetting claims could proceed under both statutes. Cisco appealed to the Supreme Court, which ultimately reversed that judgment.

Why the Supreme Court Rejected the Claims

At the center of the dispute were two federal laws with different purposes and legal requirements.

The Alien Tort Statute, enacted in 1789, gives federal district courts jurisdiction over certain civil claims brought by foreign nationals involving violations of international law. Although the statute has been used in human rights litigation, the Supreme Court has repeatedly addressed limits on its reach.

In the 2004 case Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, the Court described the ATS as a jurisdictional statute while leaving open a narrow possibility that judges could recognize certain claims based on established international norms.

Justice Barrett’s opinion rejected that possibility.

The majority concluded that federal courts lack authority to create new causes of action under the ATS for violations of international norms. In its view, doing so would risk intruding on Congress’s legislative authority and the constitutional responsibilities of the political branches in foreign affairs.

As a result, the plaintiffs could not proceed with their ATS claims against Cisco on the theory that the company aided and abetted violations of international law.

What the Ruling Means for the Torture Victim Protection Act

The Court also examined the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, which expressly authorizes civil claims for certain acts of torture and extrajudicial killing.

The plaintiffs argued that the statute could cover people who knowingly assist others in committing torture, rather than only those who directly carry out the abuse.

The Court rejected that interpretation, concluding that the TVPA does not establish aiding-and-abetting liability.

This part of the decision requires an important distinction: the TVPA claim concerned individual Cisco executives, while the ATS claims targeted the company’s alleged role in the events. The ruling did not establish a blanket immunity for every American company facing allegations involving conduct overseas. Instead, it addressed the specific legal theories presented under these two statutes.