Oral Argument: Cisco Systems v. Doe I

About this episode

The episode discusses the Supreme Court case Cisco Systems v. Doe I, focusing on corporate liability for human rights violations.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I | Case No. 24-856 | Docket Link: Here Oral Advocates: Petitioners (Cisco Systems): Kannon K. Shanmugam of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Respondents (Doe I, et al.): Paul L. Hoffman of Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman, LLP Amicus Curiae (United States): Curtis E. Gannon of the Department of Justice 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…

People in this episode

Guests: Kannon K. Shanmugam, Paul L. Hoffman, Curtis E. Gannon

Topics covered

• civil liability
• corporate responsibility
• human rights
• foreign atrocity
• legal arguments

Keywords

• Cisco Systems
• Doe I
• Alien Tort Statute
• Torture Victim Protection Act
• Falun Gong
• civil liability
• aiding-and-abetting

Mentioned in this episode

Organizations: Cisco Systems, Inc., Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman, LLP, Department of Justice, Falun Gong

Books & works: Alien Tort Statute, Torture Victim Protection Act

More episodes of The High Court Report

• Opinion Summary: Keathley v. Buddy Ayers | Nondisclosure Doesn't Lead to Lawsuit Dismissal · June 12, 2026 · 12 min
• Oral Argument Re-Listen: Hikma Pharmaceuticals v. Amarin Pharma | Generic Drug Beats Patent Trap · June 11, 2026 · 1h 2m
• Opinion Summary: Hikma Pharmaceuticals v. Amarin Pharma | Generic Drug Beats Patent Trap · June 10, 2026 · 1h 2m
• Oral Argument Re-Listen: Sripetch v. SEC | Victimless Fraudsters Can't Keep Profits · June 9, 2026 · 1h 12m
• Opinion Summary: Sripetch v. SEC | Victimless Fraudsters Can't Keep Profits · June 8, 2026 · 15 min
• Oral Argument Re-Listen: FCC v. AT&T | Forfeiture Fines Without Force · June 7, 2026 · 1h 26m