Supreme Court Insulates Tech Firms from Human Rights Liability in Cisco Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a definitive blow to the use of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) as a tool for corporate human rights accountability. In the case of Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I, the majority ruled that technology companies cannot be sued under the 1789 law for aiding and abetting international law violations. The decision effectively overrules the Court's 2004 stance in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, which had previously suggested that federal courts could recognize a narrow class of modern international norms. The Court now characterizes that possibility as a 'null set,' asserting that creating new ways to enforce international law would infringe on the prerogatives of the political branches.

The ruling brings a sudden end to a legal battle initiated in 2011 by thirteen Falun Gong practitioners. The plaintiffs alleged that Cisco played a critical role in building the 'Golden Shield,' a vast surveillance apparatus also known as the Great Firewall of China. According to the filings, Cisco customized this infrastructure to allow the Chinese government to target, track, and identify religious minorities. The plaintiffs detailed horrific abuses, including arbitrary detention and torture, claiming that their intercepted private communications were used during violent 'forced conversion' sessions at torture sites.

The Supreme Court's decision specifically rejects the Ninth Circuit's 2023 opinion, which had allowed the case to proceed. The lower court had previously found that the plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to state a 'plausible claim' that Cisco provided essential technical assistance with the awareness that extrajudicial killings and torture were 'substantially likely to take place.' However, the Supreme Court majority held that because aiding-and-abetting liability was not among the original three international crimes recognized by the First Congress—piracy, safe conduct violations, and rights of ambassadors—it cannot be judicially enforced today.

This closure of the judicial 'door' has significant implications for the technology sector's involvement in global surveillance. While Cisco’s own Global Human Rights Policy, published in 2012, claims a commitment to remediation where the company has 'caused or contributed to an adverse human rights impact,' the EFF reports that the company has provided no redress to the plaintiffs. Furthermore, a 2025 Pulitzer Prize-winning investigation by the Associated Press revealed that many American tech firms continue to dismiss human rights obligations, stating they simply 'adhere to relevant export controls' and local regulations.

The ruling leaves a significant gap in federal law regarding the export of oppressive technologies. Legal scholars, including Professor Harold Koh, warned that granting such immunity signals to U.S. companies that they may build mass surveillance systems used for persecution without fear of domestic civil liability. Advocacy groups like the EFF now argue that because the Supreme Court has read the ATS into 'non-existence' for modern contexts, the responsibility falls to Congress to pass comprehensive legislation that holds companies accountable for facilitating physical violence and state-sponsored abuses through technological means.