Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I
Decision
BrynoDC Coverage 6 videos
Opinion of the Court
The 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
Whether the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) imposes liability on entities that aid and abet torture; and whether the Alien Tort Statute permits suits based on conduct that touched U.S. territory despite the presumption against extraterritoriality.
The Rules
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.
An individual who is a victim of a violation of this chapter may bring a civil action against the perpetrator (or whoever knowingly benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value) in an appropriate district court.
The presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the ATS; claims must touch and concern U.S. territory with sufficient force to displace that presumption.
The Application
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 Doe plaintiffs argue Cisco did not merely sell off-the-shelf products — it designed and customized a surveillance system specifically to help the Chinese government identify, track, and persecute Falun Gong practitioners. This knowing, purposeful participation in torture and persecution creates liability under both the TVPRA and the ATS.
Argued April 28, 2026. The case asks whether American tech companies can be held liable when they knowingly build tools used for human rights abuses abroad. After Jesner barred ATS claims against foreign corporations, the question is whether domestic corporations face similar protection or whether the TVPRA provides an independent liability basis.
The 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.
No circuit court data for this case.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support