The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday took up a persistent legal battle over whether an American technology company can be held liable in U.S. courts for alleged human rights abuses committed abroad. At the center of the case is an allegation that Cisco Systems knowingly developed and implemented tools that enabled Chinese authorities to identify, track and persecute members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement.
Plaintiffs who say they are victims of persecution in China filed the original lawsuit in 2011 under the Alien Tort Statute, a federal law enacted in 1789 that allows non-U.S. citizens to seek damages in American courts for certain violations of international law. Cisco, headquartered in San Jose, California, is asking the Supreme Court to restrict the statute's application to prevent corporations from facing claims for aiding or abetting abuses committed by foreign governments.
The litigation has moved fitfully through the courts for more than a decade. A federal judge dismissed the case in 2014, finding the alleged conduct lacked a sufficient connection to the United States to proceed. The lawsuit then stalled amid a wave of appellate rulings that narrowed the scope of the Alien Tort Statute, making such claims harder to pursue.
In 2023 the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the action, concluding the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that Cisco provided essential technical assistance to the Chinese government's "douzheng," a crackdown on Falun Gong, and that the company was aware that international-law violations - including torture, arbitrary detention, disappearance and extrajudicial killing - were substantially likely to occur as a result.
With the case back on course toward discovery, Cisco appealed the 9th Circuit decision to the Supreme Court. The company argues the appellate court exceeded its authority by interpreting the Alien Tort Statute to permit aiding-and-abetting liability for corporations. Cisco calls the underlying allegations unfounded and offensive.
The Trump administration filed a brief siding with Cisco, urging the Court to leave the question of whether aiding-and-abetting liability exists under the Alien Tort Statute to Congress rather than the judiciary. The administration cited the significant foreign-policy implications of expanding corporate liability under a statute enacted in the 18th century.
The complaint, brought by the Human Rights Law Foundation on behalf of a group of Falun Gong members, alleges Cisco knowingly designed and implemented the so-called "Golden Shield," an internet surveillance system used by the Chinese Communist Party to identify and target dissidents. The plaintiffs say the technology was used to track Falun Gong adherents who were then subjected to torture and other abuses. Cisco disputes those charges.
Legal scholars and practitioners have treated the case as a pivotal test of whether modern corporations that provide technology and services can be held in U.S. courts for harms that occur overseas when those harms are tied to international-law violations. The core legal question for the Supreme Court is whether the Alien Tort Statute creates a cause of action for aiding and abetting such violations, and if so, what limits should apply.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision by the end of June. The outcome could affect the exposure of multinational companies in the technology sector to litigation alleging complicity in foreign human rights abuses, and it may shape how U.S. courts manage cases that involve sensitive foreign-policy considerations.
Context on the parties and the claim
Falun Gong, founded in China in 1992, was banned by Chinese authorities in 1999 following mass appearances by practitioners at the central leadership compound in Beijing. The movement has remained outspoken in its opposition to the ruling Chinese Communist Party. Some Falun Gong adherents in the United States helped establish media outlets that are critical of the party.
The Human Rights Law Foundation brought the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs. The 9th Circuit's 2023 decision allowed the case to move toward discovery by ruling that the plaintiffs had put forward plausible allegations tying Cisco's technology to the Chinese government's campaign against Falun Gong.
Potential implications for markets and sectors
While the litigation centers on legal doctrine, its practical effects, if the plaintiffs ultimately prevail, could be felt most directly in the technology sector - particularly among firms that supply surveillance, networking and cybersecurity products globally. Additionally, the case raises policy and legal questions with potential knock-on effects for multinational corporations across multiple sectors that operate in or sell technology to foreign governments.
The Supreme Court's ruling will clarify whether U.S. courts are an avenue for victims overseas to seek remedy against companies incorporated in the United States, or whether Congress must establish any corporate liability framework for aiding human rights abuses abroad.