The Cisco human rights lawsuit is a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court that asks whether Cisco Systems can be sued in American courts for allegedly designing and maintaining the surveillance technology China used to identify, detain, and torture Falun Gong practitioners. Filed in 2011 by thirteen Chinese nationals and one U.S. citizen, the suit reached oral argument on April 28, 2026, and a decision is expected by late June or early July 2026. The ruling will decide whether two federal statutes reach companies that help foreign governments commit human rights abuses, even when the company did not carry out the abuse itself.
What the Plaintiffs Allege Cisco Did
The complaint centers on the “Golden Shield,” the Chinese government’s internal surveillance network, sometimes called the “Great Firewall of China.” The plaintiffs allege Cisco did far more than sell standard networking equipment. They say the company custom-designed, built, and maintained key components of the system from its San Jose, California headquarters, knowing the technology would be used to persecute Falun Gong.
According to the complaint, Cisco engineers in California built features that let Chinese security officers cross-check names against provincial databases, monitor internet activity, read email content, and detect when practitioners visited or uploaded certain websites. The plaintiffs describe the Golden Shield as the “essential means” by which they were monitored and apprehended, and say targeting them based on their online activity would have been “virtually impossible” without it.
The complaint also alleges that Cisco’s marketing materials used the Chinese term douzheng, meaning to “crack down” on Falun Gong, and described practitioners as “viruses” and “pestilence.” Internal presentations allegedly identified Falun Gong as the primary concern of Chinese security customers. The suit names Cisco as a corporation along with former CEO John Chambers and Fredy Cheung, who ran Cisco’s Greater China operations. Cisco denies the allegations. Its attorney, Kannon Shanmugam, told the Supreme Court the company “vigorously” disputes the claims.
What the Plaintiffs Say Happened to Them
The fourteen plaintiffs, all Falun Gong practitioners proceeding under pseudonyms, describe being arrested after being identified through the surveillance network. Their accounts include repeated detention in labor camps and “re-education” facilities, beatings with steel rods, electric shock with batons, sleep deprivation, violent force-feeding, and forced ideological conversion sessions.
They allege that during those sessions, authorities used personal data pulled through the Golden Shield, including family addresses, private emails, and financial records, to pressure them into renouncing their beliefs. At least one plaintiff’s family member died from a beating while in government custody. Others report permanent physical and emotional injuries. Some say their intercepted communications were shown to them during detention as part of their torture.
The Two Laws at the Center of the Case
The Supreme Court granted review on January 9, 2026 on two questions, one about each statute the plaintiffs sued under.
The Alien Tort Statute
The Alien Tort Statute, enacted in 1789, gives federal courts jurisdiction over civil suits by foreign nationals for violations of the “law of nations.” In Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004), the Supreme Court held that federal courts may recognize a narrow set of ATS causes of action for international law norms that are “specific, universal, and obligatory.” The Court has never resolved whether that includes aiding-and-abetting claims against defendants who helped someone else commit the abuse.
Cisco argues aiding-and-abetting liability requires explicit congressional authorization, which the ATS does not provide. The company leans on Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver (1994), a securities case in which the Supreme Court refused to read aiding-and-abetting liability into a statute that did not include it. Cisco has also urged the Court to go further and overrule Sosa, restricting ATS claims to the three categories of international law violations recognized in 1789: violations of safe-conduct guarantees, infringement of ambassadors’ rights, and piracy.
The plaintiffs counter that when the ATS was enacted, aiding and abetting violations of international law were themselves considered violations of international law. They point to modern international tribunals such as Nuremberg, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia, which have consistently imposed liability on those who assist in atrocities.
The Torture Victim Protection Act
The Torture Victim Protection Act, passed in 1992, imposes liability on any person who “subjects an individual to torture.” Cisco reads that language to cover only those who directly commit or order torture, and notes the statute applies only to natural persons, not corporations.
The plaintiffs’ attorney, Paul Hoffman, argues “subjects” someone to torture encompasses anyone who causes or enables it. He noted at oral argument that Central Bank was decided in 1994, two years after the TVPA passed, so Congress could not have been legislating against that precedent. He also cited a Senate report saying the TVPA provides a cause of action “against persons who ordered, abetted, or assisted in the torture.”
How the Case Got to the Supreme Court
The plaintiffs filed in the Northern District of California in 2011. After a long series of stays tied to other ATS cases, the district court dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiffs had not shown a sufficient connection to the United States and that neither statute supported aiding-and-abetting liability.
In July 2023, the Ninth Circuit reversed in key respects. It held that corporations can be liable under the ATS, that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged Cisco’s aiding-and-abetting conduct occurred domestically in California, and, in a ruling of first impression, that the TVPA provides a private right of action for aiding and abetting torture. The panel did affirm dismissal of ATS claims against Chambers and Cheung individually for insufficient connection to the United States. Cisco petitioned the Supreme Court in January 2025, and certiorari was granted a year later.
How the Justices Sounded at Argument
The Court appeared divided after the April 28, 2026 argument, with several justices inclined to narrow ATS claims but disagreeing on how far to go.
Chief Justice Roberts was reluctant to overrule Sosa outright, saying that “usually when we overrule a past decision it’s because we think it was wrong… and we’re not saying that the Sosa decision was wrong when it interpreted the intent of the First Congress.” Justice Barrett called the case a “puzzle” and appeared to look for a middle ground, one that might leave Sosa alone but still rule against these plaintiffs. Justice Kagan suggested a “norm-by-norm” approach, evaluating each international law norm individually rather than adopting a blanket rule on aiding and abetting.
Justices Sotomayor and Jackson appeared most sympathetic to the plaintiffs. Sotomayor noted that ATS filings have dropped “precipitously” since Kiobel in 2013 and pressed Cisco’s counsel on the “ordinary meaning” of “subjects,” suggesting it means to “cause” or “expose” someone to something.
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch questioned whether Sosa allows any cause of action beyond the original three 1789 categories. Justice Kavanaugh focused on foreign-policy implications and suggested that closing off new ATS claims might push Congress to legislate directly. Justice Gorsuch said the Court has created a “mousetrap” in which ATS claims theoretically exist but plaintiffs consistently lose.
The Trump administration filed an amicus brief supporting Cisco on December 9, 2025, arguing that federal courts lack authority to infer aiding-and-abetting liability under the ATS without express congressional authorization and that adjudicating these cases risks harm to U.S. diplomatic relations. The government did not, however, argue that this specific case would harm foreign relations. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and CACI Premier Technology, which was hit with a $42 million jury verdict in 2024 for conspiracy to commit torture at Abu Ghraib, also filed for Cisco. Nineteen amicus briefs were filed in support of the plaintiffs, including from a coalition of human rights organizations, members of Congress, former U.N. Special Rapporteurs on Torture, and former U.S. Ambassadors-at-Large for War Crimes Issues.
What a Ruling for Cisco Would Mean
A ruling in Cisco’s favor could establish what legal scholars have called a “categorical bar” on aiding-and-abetting claims under the ATS, effectively ending corporate exposure to this type of human rights litigation in federal court. It could also eliminate TVPA claims against individuals who allegedly help facilitate torture without physically carrying it out. Human rights advocates have indicated that if the Court closes these federal avenues, they plan to pursue similar claims under state tort law.
The case is the latest in a run of Supreme Court decisions narrowing the ATS. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (2013) added a presumption against extraterritoriality. Jesner v. Arab Bank (2018) barred ATS suits against foreign corporations. Nestlé USA v. Doe (2021) tightened the requirement that challenged conduct occur inside the United States, holding that general corporate decision-making at U.S. headquarters was not enough. Cisco v. Doe asks whether any room remains for ATS suits against American companies alleged to have designed the tools of foreign repression on U.S. soil.
SCOTUSblog’s analysis of the oral argument concluded that the Court “seems likely to narrow ability of plaintiffs to bring claims for violations of international law,” though the scope of any narrowing remained uncertain. A decision is expected before the end of the Supreme Court’s current term.