The Burden of the Alien Tort Statute: Bringing Corporations to Justice

An analysis of the Alien Tort Statute and the struggle to hold domestic corporations accountable for huuman rights violations

---

Published May 9th, 2026

Written by Emma Hoffman

The United States Supreme Court is currently hearing the case Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I. The case asks whether “the Alien Tort Statute or the Torture Victim Protection Act allow a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting.” Do the aforementioned statutes permit the plaintiffs to file a civil lawsuit for aiding and abetting in a legally reprehensible act?

The plaintiffs in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I are thirteen Chinese citizens and one American citizen who claim that, beginning in the 1990s, the Chinese Communist Party began a campaign of douzheng or targeted oppression against people who practiced Falun Gong, a practice derived from Buddhism. The CCP aimed to detain, convert and torture participants. To do this, the CCP wanted to initiate a “Golden Shield” surveillance system. Lacking the technological ability to do so, the CCP turned to Cisco Systems, Inc., which provided the CCP with the technology and training necessary to bring the "Golden Shield” system to life.

Though this case does not directly deal with the morality or legality of Cisco Systems, Inc.’s actions, it is still comparable to other legal cases dealing with domestic corporations conducting inhumane actions on foreign soil. The results from such cases inform observers about the implications of granting private right of action to the plaintiffs in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I.

Perhaps one of the most infamous cases involves Nestlé USA, Inc. and its business practices on the Ivory Coast. The plaintiffs, a group of children who filed a class action lawsuit, alleged the Nestlé company utilized the labor of kidnapped and enslaved children who worked on their cocoa plantations for up to 14 hours a day with no compensation. The plaintiffs sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) for aiding and abetting in enslavement practices. The ATS is officially known as 28 U.S.C. § 1350., which allows foreign actors to sue domestic parties for tort.

The justices presiding over this case voted 8-1 in favor of the Nestlé corporation, stating the “plaintiffs must allege more domestic conduct than general corporate activity.” The main reason for the failure of the plaintiffs, according to Justice Clarence Thomas, is they “improperly [sought] extraterritorial application of the ATS.” Extraterritoriality permits the application of US law in foreign territories (Congress). Further, several Justices wrote in their opinion that only Congress can create a “cause of action,” not the Supreme Court. In essence, existing statutory law stemming from Congress can be used as the foundation of a legal argument but a court can not create such a ruling. To ensure the plaintiffs in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I do not repeat the same mistakes made by the plaintiffs in Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe I, they have the burden of proving the ATS permits judicially-implied right of action. To prove ATS is applicable in this case, the plaintiffs must demonstrate sufficient domestic action taken by Cisco Systems, Inc. that connects their corporate decisions to aiding and abetting in the CCP’s Golden Shield system. Further, four criteria must be met for the ATS to be applied: according to 28 U.S. Code § 1350, the offense must be a “civil action [petitioned] by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” Failing to prove that the requirements of ATS were met would permit the abusive behavior conducted by Cisco Systems, Inc. to go unpunished as in the case of Nestlé USA, Inc.

Nefarious behavior by American corporations in foreign countries is not a new phenomenon and has famously been conducted by one of the amicus curiae supporting Cisco Systems. Chevron Corporation was brought to court under the ATS for the murder and torture of Nigerian environmental protestors by Chevron-sponsored armed forces. Because of the verdict in favor of the defendant, Chevron can continue polluting the Nigerian environment while intimidating residents through their control of police and other armed forces.

A failure on behalf of the plaintiffs to prove the applicability of the ATS would similarly permit Cisco Systems to continue or re-initiate malicious behavior. The ATS is an elusive legal standard but demonstrating its prevalence in the case of Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I would help set a precedent that corporations are not immune from punishment for universally reprehensible acts.

---