The distinction matters because the availability of a legal claim depends on the wording of the relevant law, the parties involved, and the circumstances of a particular case.

The Justices Disagreed Over the Scope of Judicial Authority

Justice Barrett was joined in the majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, arguing that the Court should have allowed the plaintiffs’ ATS claims to proceed under the applicable legal framework.

Sotomayor’s opinion emphasized the allegations that Cisco knowingly provided technology that helped Chinese authorities identify and persecute religious minorities. She argued that existing precedent supported allowing the plaintiffs to pursue their claims, rather than foreclosing the legal theory entirely.

Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined portions of Sotomayor’s dissent. However, their positions on the separate TVPA issue differed from Sotomayor’s: Jackson, joined by Kagan, agreed with the conclusion that the statute does not provide for aiding-and-abetting liability.

The opinions therefore reflected a disagreement primarily over the scope of judicial authority under the ATS, rather than a unanimous division across every issue in the case.

Implications for Companies Operating Internationally

The decision narrows one avenue through which foreign plaintiffs have sought compensation in U.S. courts for alleged human rights violations involving corporate conduct abroad.

For companies operating internationally, the ruling provides greater clarity about the limits of claims under the ATS and TVPA. Businesses facing allegations that their products or services assisted foreign governments can point to the Court’s restrictions when challenging lawsuits brought under those statutes.