Supreme Court Shields Cisco from Falun Gong Lawsuit

Supreme Court Shields Cisco from Falun Gong Persecution Lawsuit over Surveillance Tech

Cisco

Supreme Court's landmark decision shields tech giants from foreign human rights litigation accountability proceedings.

Supreme Court ruled American courts lack jurisdiction over foreign human rights abuses abroad
Justice Barrett's majority opinion effectively eliminates future Alien Tort Statute claims
Falun Gong members alleged Cisco designed surveillance tools to persecute them
American tech companies built China's surveillance infrastructure with government encouragement
Justice Sotomayor's dissent warns the decision shuts courthouse doors to future victims

Human rights supporters suffered a major defeat when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that Cisco Systems could not be sued in U.S. courts for allegedly supplying surveillance equipment that was used by Chinese authorities to persecute members of the spiritual movement called Falun Gong. In a 6-1 ruling, the Supreme Court rejected arguments put forward by plaintiffs who were trying to use two different laws (the Alien Tort Claims Act, passed in the 1700's; and the Torture Victim Protection Act, passed in 1991) to sue Cisco Systems.

In writing the majority opinion for the Supreme Court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated that U.S. courts are not the appropriate venue to adjudicate claims regarding acts that took place outside of the United States. She also pointed out that various options suggested in an earlier decision by the Supreme Court (from 2004) would not be available to plaintiffs with respect to any claims based on violations of international human right laws. Justice Barrett acknowledged that there were very serious allegations related to these cases (and, as such, they usually involve horrible and unacceptable actions), but the core issue was whether there was jurisdiction over these cases.

The Falun Gong case stems from a suit filed in 2011 against Cisco by members of the Falun Gong religious movement. The complaint alleges that Cisco purposefully entered into an agreement with the Chinese government to set up a surveillance system specifically for supporting the government (and military) as they track, relocate, and torture any believer in Falun Gong. In addition, an Associated Press investigation has uncovered documents dated March 2008 that show Cisco had previously acknowledged that their involvement in, and support of, the "Golden Shield" internet surveillance program in China was not only a business opportunity, but also a means for the Chinese government to control and deny its people their freedom of expression according to Florence.

According to leaked documents, Cisco provided capabilities that they claim give them the ability to identify at least 90% of all online content related to the Falun Gong movement. Cisco, in their presentations to governments, labeled this material as a national “threat,” and created systems to monitor and track Falun Gong believers throughout China. Cisco’s lawyers argued vehemently against that claim, stating that the company “disputes vigorously these allegations.” The ruling issued today has far-reaching implications well beyond this particular lawsuit.

Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion stated that the ruling “effectively shuts off the courthouse to not just the respondents in this case, but virtually all future litigants with claims for violations of international law.” Her opinion also emphasizes the far-reaching impact of today’s ruling and the implications of that ruling on mechanisms of accountability in an increasingly interconnected world.

Business Honor is of the view that the Supreme Court's ruling represents a strategic shift limiting corporate accountability for international human rights violations committed through surveillance technology exports.