The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a landmark victory for American companies and constitutional limits on judicial power.
Doe (24-856) that neither the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) nor the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) allows private plaintiffs to sue for aiding and abetting alleged violations of international law.
The ruling bolsters the Trump administration’s America First agenda by restoring proper roles: Congress and the executive handle foreign
policy and create remedies when needed, while courts stick to enforcing enacted law.
It protects U. S. technological leadership, deters forum-shopping by overseas claimants, and reaffirms that the Constitution does not empower
judges to conduct foreign relations through private lawsuits.
In an age of global competition and aggressive adversaries like Communist China, this is a commonsense defense of American sovereignty and enterprise
The decision slams the door on expansive, judge-made lawsuits that have long threatened U. S. businesses operating abroad.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
Today, we close the door that Sosa cracked and hold that courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms,” Barrett wrote
“We also hold that the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, which contains an express cause of action, does not provide for aiding-and-abetting liability,” Barrett added.
The case involved claims by unnamed Falun Gong practitioners alleging Cisco Systems and its executives aided Chinese government persecution by selling networking equipment used in surveillance.
The Ninth Circuit had allowed the claims to proceed, but the Supreme Court reversed
The Trump administration strongly supported taking the case and backed Cisco.
The Solicitor General participated in oral argument, urging the Court to reject judicial overreach that exposes American firms to unpredictable foreign-policy litigation.
This aligned with the administration’s goals of protecting U.S
Barrett emphasized separation of powers: “The power to create causes of action belongs to Congress… Creating any cause of action ‘is an extraordinary act that places great stress on the separation of powers. ’”
She noted the ATS is jurisdictional only and warned against courts inventing liability that risks “adverse foreign policy consequences. ”
Justice Thomas, in prior related writings referenced by the majority, reinforced originalist limits
Justice Alito has similarly stressed caution against race- or group-based standards bleeding into other doctrines, though here the focus remained textual and structural.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Justice Elena Kagan.
She agreed on narrowing the ATS but argued the TVPA’s text could encompass aiding and abetting in some cases
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented more broadly, joined by Kagan and Jackson in key parts, claiming the majority “jettisons two decades of settled precedent” and warning it “forecloses future reliance on Sosa and shuts the courthouse doors to almost any claimed violation of international law under the ATS. ”
Sotomayor added on the TVPA: “Because the plain text of this statute includes individuals who aid and abet the victim’s torture, I would affirm the Ninth Circuit’s judgment on this score as well. ”
This decision represents a major conservative triumph for textualism, originalism, and restraint
By ending the era of judicially invented ATS claims and rejecting implied aiding-and-abetting liability under the TVPA, the Court prevents activist plaintiffs and foreign interests from weaponizing U. S.
courts against American companies.
Such suits have long imposed massive legal costs, chilled innovation, and entangled businesses in overseas disputes far removed from legitimate U. S. interests.
Companies like Cisco can now focus on lawful commerce without fear of endless “international norm” litigation dreamed up by creative lawyers
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.
