← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I

No. 24-856 SCOTUS · Decided SCOTUS
Cert Granted: Jan 9, 2026 Argued: Apr 28, 2026 Decided: Jun 23, 2026
📄 Read the Opinion

aiding and abetting damages

Decision

Opinion Barrett, J.
Concurrence Jackson, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part, Kagan, J., joining)
Dissent Sotomayor, J. (Kagan, Jackson, JJ., joining as to Parts I-III and V)

Legal Issues

aiding and abettingdamages

The Law · How the Case Works

Opinion of the Court

Barrett, J.

Overview

Overview

In Cisco, the court must decide whether Falun Gong practitioners can sue Cisco in U.S. Courts for allegedly helping the Chinese government build the surveillance system used to identify, track, and persecute them. And whether any federal law allows that kind of aiding-and-abetting claim against a private company.

The Facts

Facts

Falun Gong practitioners in China allege that Cisco Systems designed and maintained a surveillance and tracking system that the Chinese government used to identify, arrest, torture, and persecute religious adherents, with Cisco knowing the system's intended use. Plaintiffs sued under the Alien Tort Statute and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act for aiding and abetting human rights abuses.

The Issue

Issue

Whether American corporations may be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute or the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act for providing commercial technology that a foreign government uses to identify, surveille, and persecute religious minorities.

The Rules

Rule

Under Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe, 593 U.S. 628 (2021), domestic corporations may face ATS liability only when the conduct relevant to the ATS's focus occurs on U.S. soil. The TVPRA (18 U.S.C. § 1595) authorizes civil suits against those who benefit financially from participation in a trafficking venture, but requires knowing participation. Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 584 U.S. 241 (2018), held that foreign corporations may not be defendants under the ATS.

The Application

Analysis

Cisco argues the TVPRA does not impose aiding-and-abetting liability on corporations that sell commercial products, even if those products are used by foreign governments for human rights abuses. After Jesner v. Arab Bank (2018), the ATS does not extend to corporate conduct abroad, and domestic corporations should not face different treatment.

The Conclusion

Conclusion

The Court ruled 6-3 that neither the Alien Tort Statute nor the Trafficking Victims Protection Act allows plaintiffs to sue corporations for aiding and abetting human rights violations committed abroad. Cisco cannot be held liable for allegedly helping the Chinese government track and persecute Falun Gong practitioners.

Court -
Filed -
CL Status -

No circuit court data for this case.

Cert GrantedJan 9, 2026
Status -
Filed (CL) -

Decision

Opinion Barrett, J.
Concurrence Jackson, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part, Kagan, J., joining)
Dissent Sotomayor, J. (Kagan, Jackson, JJ., joining as to Parts I-III and V)
SCOTUS TMR-cec05b03 Jul 27, 2026
Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support