Episode
Case Preview: Cisco Systems v. Doe I | Complicity or Commerce? Can U.S. Courts Hold Tech Giants Liable for Foreign Torture?
- Podcast
- The High Court Report
- Published
- Apr 18, 2026
- Duration seconds
- 913
- Processing state
not_requested
Actions
POST https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/the-high-court-report-7304353/episodes/case-preview-cisco-systems-v-doe-i-complicity-or-commerce-can-u-s-courts-hold-tech-giants-liable-for-foreign-torture/transcription-requests
Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode.GET https://stenobird.com/podcast/the-high-court-report-7304353/case-preview-cisco-systems-v-doe-i-complicity-or-commerce-can-u-s-courts-hold-tech-giants-liable-for-foreign-torture.md
Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource.
Summary
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I | Case No. 24-856 | Docket Link: Here Question Presented: Whether the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act authorize civil aiding-and-abetting liability against a U.S. technology company for facilitating a foreign government's torture of a religious minority. Overview: Falun Gong practitioners sued Cisco for building custom surveillance technology the Chinese government used to identify, arrest, and torture them. The case tests whether two federal statutes allow courts to impose civil liability on corporate enablers of foreign atrocity. Posture: Ninth Circuit reversed dismissal and allowed aiding-and-abetting claims to proceed; Supreme Court granted certiorari January 9, 2026. Main Arguments: Cisco (Petitioner): (1) Federal courts lack authority to create any new ATS causes of action — that power belongs exclusively to Congress; (2) Central Bank forecloses implied civil aiding-and-abetting liability absent express statutory authorization; (3) The TVPA's verb "subjects" covers command responsibility, not remote corporate assistance far removed from custody or control of victims. Falun Gong Practitioners (Respondent): (1) Aiding-and-abetting liability existed under the law of nations at the Founding and the First Congress intended ATS coverage to reach accessories; (2) Central Bank applied ordinary statutory interpretation, not a blanket clear-statement rule, and both the ATS and TVPA support aiding-and-abetting claims under that same analysis; (3) The TVPA's deliberate choice of the broad verb "subjects" — rather than the narrower "commits" used in criminal statutes — reflects congressional intent to reach secondary actors, confirmed by legislative history stating liability extends to those who "ordered, abetted, or assis…