In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe, the Supreme Court held that federal courts cannot create new causes of action under the Alien Tort Statute for violations of international law and that the Torture Victim Protection Act does not provide for aiding-and-abetting liability.
The ATS gives federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits brought by foreign nationals for torts committed in violation of international law. The TVPA is a related statute that allows certain victims of torture to recover damages against their perpetrators. The plaintiffs in the case—members of a Chinese religious movement—brought a class action under both statutes, claiming that the defendants aided and abetted the Chinese government in violation of international law.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the ATS or TVPA allowed an implied cause of action for aiding and abetting. Justice Barrett, writing for the six-Justice majority, held that courts cannot create new causes of action under the ATS—a jurisdictional statute—because doing so intrudes on Congress’s power to create private rights of action and risks interfering with the foreign policy goals of the political branches. In the Court’s view, the only claims a party could potentially bring under the ATS are those that were recognized at the time the statute was enacted: (1) “violation of safe conducts,” (2) “infringement of the rights of ambassadors,” and (3) “piracy.” As for the TVPA claim, the majority held that the TVPA does not authorize aiding-and-abetting liability because that language is not present in the text of the statute. The Court reasoned that when Congress wants to impose aiding-and-abetting liability, it says so explicitly.
Justice Sotomayor dissented from both holdings, arguing that the majority’s decision conflicted with prior Supreme Court precedent. Justice Jackson and Justice Kagan agreed with the majority’s conclusion on the TVPA but dissented on the ATS.
The Court’s decision will make it more difficult to bring class actions in federal court for alleged violations of international law. By foreclosing any new causes of action under the ATS and rejecting aiding-and-abetting liability under the TVPA, the Supreme Court eliminated two primary legal theories plaintiffs have used to adjudicate alleged international law violations in federal court.