The Supreme Court heard argument April 29 in Cisco v. Doe, with justices signaling they may further restrict human rights suits under the ATS and TVPA.
The Supreme Court heard roughly two hours of oral argument on April 29 in *Cisco Systems v. Doe*, and the justices' questioning signaled broad skepticism toward allowing private civil suits under two federal statutes that human rights plaintiffs have long used to pursue American corporations in domestic courts [1]. The case asks whether the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act permit aiding-and-abetting liability against a U.S. technology company for alleged torture and serious violations of international law [1].
The procedural posture places the case before the Supreme Court on certiorari after years of lower-court litigation in which Doe plaintiffs, identified anonymously, sought to hold Cisco liable for providing surveillance technology allegedly used to identify, detain, and torture Falun Gong practitioners in China [1]. The justices' line of questioning at argument suggested the Court may be prepared to hold that neither statute supports secondary liability of the kind the plaintiffs advance, and that the nexus to United States territory remains insufficient to overcome the presumption against extraterritorial application [1].
The significance is structural. The Court progressively narrowed ATS litigation in *Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum* (2013), which imposed a strong presumption against extraterritoriality, and then in *Jesner v. Arab Bank* (2018), which foreclosed ATS claims against foreign corporations entirely [1]. A ruling for Cisco would extend that trajectory by cutting off claims against domestic corporations where the alleged conduct occurs abroad, leaving human rights plaintiffs with few remaining federal common-law vehicles for redress against U.S. companies [1]. The Torture Victim Protection Act question is equally consequential because it is a congressional enactment, not a judicial creation, and any limits the Court places on it would carry different doctrinal weight than further pruning of judge-made ATS doctrine [1].
A decision is expected before the Court's term ends in late June or early July 2026 [1]. If the Court rules for Cisco on both statutory grounds, advocates and litigants will likely shift attention to state tort law, foreign courts, or legislative remedies. Congress has periodically considered updating the TVPA, though no active bill currently addresses the gap a ruling against the plaintiffs would create [1].