The US Supreme Court will address an important question for individuals and multinational corporations operating in complex global markets. On January 9, 2026, the Court agreed to hear Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I to determine whether two bedrock human rights statutes, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), allow suits against individuals and entities for aiding and abetting violations of international law.
Secondary liability issues often arise in modern human rights litigation. The Court’s decision will help define the boundaries for holding persons and corporations accountable for their role in alleged abuses committed abroad, impacting both US foreign policy and transnational business.
Background
Plaintiffs, who practice the Falun Gong religion in China, allege that Cisco and two of its executives knowingly aided and abetted human rights abuses committed by the Chinese government. Specifically, they claim that Cisco designed, built, and maintained a nationwide surveillance system that allowed China to identify, track, and arrest Falun Gong adherents.
The lawsuit is based on two separate but related federal statutes. The ATS, enacted in 1789, allows federal courts to hear lawsuits brought by non-US citizens for actions that violate the “law of nations” (customary international law). The TVPA, passed in 1992, creates liability for torture and extrajudicial killings committed by a foreign nation. Unlike the ATS, the TVPA applies only to conduct committed by individual defendants, not corporations.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has significantly narrowed the scope of the ATS. In Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004), the Court concluded that only certain conduct could give rise to liability under the ATS. In addition, the Court held in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (2013) that a plaintiff cannot sue under the ATS when the alleged conduct occurs entirely outside the United States. Relatedly, in Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe (2021), the Court determined that corporate decisionmaking is not enough to hold a company liable.
In July 2023, the Ninth Circuit allowed the claims against Cisco to continue. It held that aiding and abetting is actionable under the ATS, and that Cisco’s development of the surveillance system went beyond mere decisionmaking. The Ninth Circuit also held that the TVPA’s text and history permit aiding and abetting claims against Cisco’s executives.
Implications for Individuals and Multinational Corporations
The stakes are exceptionally high. The Supreme Court’s decision in Cisco will define whether multinational companies and their executives can be held liable when their products and services contribute to human rights abuses around the world. The ruling will provide critical guidance for navigating the legal risks associated with operating in countries with poor human rights records and doing business with foreign governments.
On one hand, a ruling for the plaintiffs would create a pathway for holding US corporations and individuals responsible for facilitating human rights abuses. On the other, a decision in Cisco’s favor could limit a plaintiff’s ability to bring aiding and abetting claims under these statutes, effectively shielding corporations from liability unless Congress steps in.
A key issue that the Court will not settle, however, is the mental state that a company must have to be held liable for aiding and abetting under the ATS. The Courts of Appeals are divided on whether a “knowledge” or “purpose” standard applies in ATS cases, a question presented in the cert petition. The Court decided not to review that question, narrowing this case (for now) to the question of whether aiding and abetting claims are permissible under the ATS.
The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled oral argument. Freshfields will continue to monitor developments in the case and analyze the Court’s decision.
