Over the course of fourteen years of litigation, a certain type of frustration develops that doesn’t go away quickly, even after the verdict is rendered. Members of the Falun Gong movement had been suing Cisco Systems, the San Jose-based networking behemoth, for a long time. On June 23, 2025, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to end the case. The ruling did more than simply end a case. It may have permanently closed one of the few legal avenues available to victims of human rights violations abroad to hold American companies responsible.
The lawsuit, which was first filed in 2011, was based on a federal statute known as the Alien Tort Statute, which dates back to 1789. Before human rights attorneys brought it back to life in the 1980s, it was essentially dormant for almost two centuries. The Human Rights Law Foundation represented the Falun Gong plaintiffs, who claimed that Cisco intentionally assisted in the creation and execution of China’s “Golden Shield,” a massive internet monitoring system. The Chinese Communist Party was able to identify, track, and eventually torture members of the spiritual group thanks to this technology, according to the lawsuit. Cisco rejected the accusations as baseless and disrespectful.
Due to a number of prior Supreme Court rulings that had already been eroding the scope of the Alien Tort Statute, the case proceeded slowly through the legal system. In 2014, a federal judge dismissed the case due to insufficient ties to American territory. Then, in 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals brought it back to life, concluding that the plaintiffs had a legitimate claim that Cisco had given crucial technical support, knowing that torture and arbitrary detention were likely to ensue. The case appeared for a brief moment to be headed toward discovery. It didn’t.
Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett was straightforward. She contended that the statute does not impose liability for aiding and abetting violations of international law because courts are unable to establish new rights of action to address such violations. The three justices who lean liberal disagreed. The plaintiffs’ attorney, Paul Hoffman, stated that Congress must now take action so that victims of grave abuses committed by American corporations may still have some legal recourse in American courts. It’s difficult not to interpret that statement as an admission that the legal path is currently closed.
The political context is what makes the decision especially noteworthy. Instead of siding with the plaintiffs, the Trump administration supported Cisco. Additionally, Falun Gong has a complex presence in American public life. The group was outlawed in China in 1999 after thousands of its members staged a silent protest close to Beijing’s central leadership compound. The group started the right-wing publication Epoch Times, which has been largely pro-Trump and harshly critical of the Chinese Communist Party. It’s an odd convergence of interests that lurks in the background of this case like an unnoticed anecdote.
It is important to observe the larger legal trend. A similar lawsuit against Cargill and a Nestlé subsidiary for allegedly participating in cocoa farm slavery in Ivory Coast was dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2021. The same justification applied: insufficient U.S.-based behavior. Whether on purpose or not, the court appears to be drawing a consistent line that shields American companies from responsibility for the outcomes of their technology or business choices when they are exported. Whether that line represents sound legal reasoning or something more practical is still up for debate.
What responsibility a company bears when it develops tools that it knows or should know will be used to suppress and harm people is the question that remains, and it is a real one. There are repercussions when technology spreads throughout the world. Although the Falun Gong lawsuit was unable to convince the Supreme Court of its position, it brought up an issue that a 6-3 decision does not completely address: the moral significance of what is constructed and for whom.
