The Supreme Court delivered a significant blow to human rights litigation on Tuesday, ruling 6-3 that followers of the Falun Gong spiritual movement cannot sue tech giant Cisco Systems for allegedly helping the Chinese government track, detain, and torture members of the group. The decision sharply curtails the ability of foreign plaintiffs to hold U.S. corporations accountable in American courts for overseas abuses.
The conservative majority rejected the plaintiffs' claims under the 18th-century Alien Tort Statute (ATS), a law that has been a key tool for alleging human rights violations abroad. Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated that the category of claims the plaintiffs sought to bring is effectively a “null set,” adding that “courts cannot create new rights of action to remedy violations of internal law.” The ruling means there is no liability for aiding and abetting such violations under the ATS.
In a partial win for the plaintiffs, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sided with the majority on the question of Cisco’s then-executives, creating a 7-2 split that they cannot be sued under the Torture Victim Protection Act. The two executives were John Chambers and Giovanni Marchese.
The case stems from a 2011 lawsuit filed by a group of Chinese nationals and a U.S. citizen who claimed they or their family members were Falun Gong practitioners. They alleged that Cisco’s networking equipment and surveillance technology were used by Chinese authorities to identify and persecute believers, leading to detention, torture, and forced labor. Cisco has denied the allegations.
A federal judge initially dismissed the suit in 2014, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit revived some claims in 2023, clearing the way for the case to proceed. Cisco appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments in late April. Tuesday’s ruling effectively shuts down the lawsuit for good.
The decision has broad implications for corporate accountability. It reinforces a trend in which the Court has limited the extraterritorial reach of U.S. laws, making it harder for foreigners to sue American companies for complicity in human rights abuses abroad. This is consistent with other recent high court rulings that have constrained the scope of international human rights claims, such as the decision blocking damages for a forcibly shaved Rastafarian inmate.
The ruling also lands as the Court has been grappling with other politically charged cases. Earlier this term, the justices issued a narrow gun rights ruling that exposed deep divisions over Second Amendment standards. Tuesday’s decision adds to a docket that has touched on issues from religious liberty to corporate liability.
For Falun Gong practitioners and human rights advocates, the outcome is a major setback. They argue that without the threat of U.S. litigation, companies like Cisco may feel emboldened to sell surveillance technology to authoritarian regimes. The Chinese government has long banned Falun Gong as a cult and has cracked down on its members since the late 1990s.
The case also highlights the ongoing tension between U.S. foreign policy and corporate interests. While the Biden administration has criticized China’s human rights record, the Court’s decision effectively shields American firms from lawsuits that could complicate trade relations. This dynamic was evident in recent debates over overseas labor abuses that forced Beijing to rewrite rules for Chinese firms.
Justice Barrett’s opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Jackson on the ATS issue. The Court’s decision marks the end of a long legal battle and sets a new precedent that will likely deter future human rights claims against U.S. corporations.
