Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor speaks during a private service for retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court on December 18, 2023 in Washington, DC.

...

Dan Gooding

By Dan Gooding

Associate News Editor

0

Share

Newsweek is a Trust Project member

See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a warning on human rights cases on Tuesday, following a 6-3 ruling that could limit similar cases brought by foreign nationals in the future.

The ruling, penned by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, sided with Cisco Systems in a case brought by Chinese Falun Gong practitioners who alleged the company helped the Chinese government identify and persecute them through surveillance technology. At the center of the case was the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), an 18th‑century law that federal courts had interpreted to allow lawsuits over certain human rights abuses committed overseas.

"The Court nonetheless closes the courthouse doors not just to respondents, but to virtually every future litigant seeking redress for a violation of international law under the ATS," Sotomayor warned. “Today’s decision marks yet another low point in this Court’s esteem for its precedents.”

Read More on U.S.

Newsweek reached out to Cisco Systems via email for comment.

What Changed in This Ruling?

In a 2004 ruling, Sosa v. Alvarez‑Machain, the Supreme Court held that the Alien Tort Statute is mainly a jurisdictional law but left a narrow opening for courts to recognize limited human rights claims based on well‑established international norms. For years, that decision served as the backbone of lawsuits accusing corporations and individuals of complicity in abuses abroad.

On Tuesday, the court’s conservative majority held that judges no longer have the authority to recognize new claims under that statute—effectively shutting the door on most modern uses of the law.

Barrett framed the ruling as a matter of constitutional limits, emphasizing that creating new causes of action is a job for Congress, not the courts. The opinion declared that any remaining space for courts to expand lawsuits under the ATS is, in reality, nonexistent, calling earlier precedent that suggested otherwise a "fiction."

The court also rejected a related claim under the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), ruling that the statute does not allow lawsuits against individuals or companies accused of aiding and abetting torture unless Congress explicitly provides for that kind of liability.

What Is Cisco Systems V. DOE?

The ruling went far beyond the specifics of the case, closing off a legal pathway that has, for decades, allowed foreign plaintiffs to sue over alleged violations of international law.

The logo of U.S. tech giant Cisco is pictured at the International Cybersecurity Forum (FIC) in Lille, northern France, on June 8, 2022.

...

What Was Cisco's Position?

Cisco consistently denied wrongdoing and argued that the case should not proceed in U.S. courts, maintaining that it should not be held liable for actions carried out by the Chinese government.

The company’s core legal argument focused on the limits of U.S. law. Cisco contended that the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) does not allow courts to create new claims for overseas human rights violations and that extending liability to companies for “aiding and abetting” would go beyond what Congress authorized.

Cisco also argued that the claims raised serious foreign policy concerns, warning that allowing such lawsuits to proceed could interfere with U.S. diplomatic relations and improperly draw courts into matters better handled by Congress or the executive branch. The majority echoed this reasoning, emphasizing that cases involving alleged violations of international law inherently risk affecting foreign policy.

On the separate claims under the Torture Victim Protection Act, Cisco took the position that the law applies only to individuals who directly commit torture—not to those accused of assisting indirectly. The court again sided with that view, finding that the statute does not provide for aiding-and-abetting liability because Congress did not explicitly include it

More broadly, Cisco’s position reflects a concern shared by many corporate defendants in similar cases: that allowing such lawsuits could expose companies to liability for business activities conducted abroad, particularly in countries with different legal systems or government practices. The ruling significantly narrows that risk, aligning with Cisco’s argument that the scope of such claims should be strictly limited.

Sotomayor’s Warning to the Court

Sotomayor, writing in dissent and joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson in large part, accused the majority of effectively overruling precedent while failing to fully acknowledge it.

The court, she said, now "closes the courthouse doors" not just to the plaintiffs in this case, but to "virtually every future litigant" seeking relief under the ATS.

She warned that the ruling will block claims involving some of the most serious alleged abuses in international law, including torture, forced labor and genocide, arguing that the majority has taken an overly restrictive view of the judiciary’s role.

“The Court’s decision,” she wrote, “slams the door in the faces of victims of horrific mistreatment” without evidence that Congress intended such a result.

On the separate issue of aiding‑and‑abetting liability under the TVPA, Sotomayor likewise disagreed with the majority, arguing that the statute’s text should allow claims against those who play a meaningful role in facilitating torture, even if they do not carry it out directly.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor speaks in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court on December 18, 2023, in Washington, D.C.

...

What Is China's "Golden Shield"

China’s Golden Shield Project is a vast government-run system designed to monitor, manage and control information across the country’s digital networks.

Built and operated by the Ministry of Public Security, it combines surveillance tools, databases and internet controls to track individuals and enforce state security policies.

One of its most well-known components is the so-called "Great Firewall," which filters online traffic, blocks foreign websites and censors content deemed sensitive or politically unacceptable by authorities. In practical terms, the system allows officials to both restrict what people in China can access online and monitor user activity at a large scale.

What Is Falun Gong?

Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, is a spiritual movement that emerged in China in the early 1990s. It combines meditation exercises with moral teachings rooted in Buddhist and Taoist traditions, emphasizing principles such as truthfulness, compassion and tolerance.

The practice grew rapidly during that decade, attracting millions of adherents before the Chinese government banned it in 1999.

Authorities have since labeled the group illegal and launched a long-running campaign against it, with reports from governments and human rights organizations describing arrests, detention and other abuses targeting practitioners.

Who Is Cisco Owned By?

Cisco, one of the world's largest technology and telecommunications companies, is based in San Jose, California.

It is a publicly traded company, meaning it is owned by shareholders. Some of the largest of these include the Vanguard Group and BlackRock.

A Stark Divide on the Court

The ruling highlights a deep divide among the justices over the role of courts in addressing international human rights claims.

In the context of the Cisco case, the two are closely linked, as the lawsuit alleged that technology tied to China’s surveillance apparatus, including systems associated with the Golden Shield, was used to identify and target Falun Gong practitioners, helping authorities track and detain members of the banned group.

While the majority emphasized judicial restraint and deference to Congress, the dissenters argued that the court is abandoning a longstanding mechanism for addressing global abuses in U.S. courts.

For Sotomayor, the consequences are clear: a significant rollback of legal tools once available to hold alleged perpetrators, and those who assist them, accountable. For the majority, the decision reflects a broader shift toward limiting the judiciary’s role and leaving such policy questions to lawmakers.

Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Jason Lemon and Gray R. Thomas.

View 0 Comments

Request Reprint & Licensing

Submit Correction

View Editorial & AI Guidelines