We achieved a significant win for corporate defendants, foreclosing new causes of action under the statute

On June 23, 2026, Davis Polk secured a decisive victory for client Cisco Systems, Inc. before the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court held that federal courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and that the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA) does not provide for aiding-and-abetting liability. The decision reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and effectively ends litigation that had been pending since 2011. The decision is a significant win for corporate defendants, foreclosing an entire category of potential litigation and providing clarity that no additional liability may be fashioned under the ATS going forward. The matter was argued for Cisco by Kannon Shanmugam, the head of Davis Polk’s Supreme Court & Appellate practice, in his first week at the firm.

The plaintiffs claimed that Cisco and two of its executives aided and abetted a range of international-law violations in violation of the ATS and the TVPA. The district court dismissed the complaint, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that aiding-and-abetting liability was available under both statutes.

Writing for the Court, Justice Barrett closed the door on the judicial recognition of new causes of action that Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), had cracked open, holding that the authority to create causes of action under the ATS – “always described as slight” – “is more accurately described as nonexistent.” The Court reasoned that recognizing new ATS causes of action would intrude on Congress’s prerogative to create private rights of action and on the political branches’ authority over foreign policy. Because courts cannot create new rights of action to remedy violations of international law, there is no liability for aiding and abetting such violations, and the plaintiffs’ ATS claims against Cisco had to be dismissed.

The Court also rejected the TVPA claims against Cisco’s executives, holding that the statute’s express cause of action against one who “subjects” another to torture does not extend to aiding-and-abetting liability. Drawing on Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164 (1994), the Court explained that the TVPA “nowhere mentions aiding-and-abetting liability, and that silence is enough to settle the issue.” The Court further reasoned that to “subject” another to torture signals a direct causal connection between torturer and victim, whereas aiding-and-abetting liability sweeps more broadly to reach those one or more steps removed from the wrongdoing.

Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Kagan, filed an opinion concurring as to the TVPA and dissenting as to the ATS. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

The Davis Polk team included partners Kannon Shanmugam and Masha Hansford and associates Jake L. Kramer and Candice J. Yandam Riviere. Members of the Davis Polk team are based in the Washington DC and New York offices.

Copy link to share post