The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday to limit the jurisdiction of American courts in cases alleging violations of international law, effectively dismissing a lawsuit against Cisco Systems by members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement. The plaintiffs accused the San Jose-based technology company of enabling the Chinese government’s human rights abuses through its role in developing the “Golden Shield” surveillance system, which was used to target and suppress Falun Gong practitioners.

Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett emphasized that while the alleged acts are serious, the courts are not the appropriate venue for addressing such claims. She argued that political branches of the U.S. government or other international entities are better equipped to handle these issues, cautioning against an expansive reading of the 1789 Alien Tort Statute (ATS), the federal law under which the lawsuit was filed. The ATS permits foreign nationals to bring claims in U.S. courts for certain violations of international law, but the justices have increasingly narrowed its scope in recent years.

Conservative justices joined Barrett in a majority that rejected the plaintiffs’ claim, while some liberal justices partially joined the majority and dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined in part by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticized the ruling for overturning longstanding precedent without explicitly acknowledging it. She argued that if the allegations were true, Cisco would have violated universally recognized norms of international law and that the court’s decision would close the door for future victims seeking redress through the ATS.

The lawsuit dated back to 2011, when Falun Gong practitioners alleged that Cisco collaborated with Beijing authorities to enable a surveillance infrastructure that facilitated the persecution of their members. The Chinese government banned Falun Gong in 1999 following protests and has been accused by human rights organizations of subjecting practitioners to detention, torture, and forced labor—allegations the Chinese government denies.

This case is part of a broader trend in which the Supreme Court has refined the ATS’s application. Past rulings in 2004, 2013, and 2021 have progressively tightened the conditions under which human rights claims can be brought under the statute, often emphasizing the need for significant domestic conduct or limiting the recognized categories of violations. The Trump administration had supported Cisco in this case, as did major corporations like Chevron and Dole, citing concerns that broad application of the ATS leads to costly and protracted litigation.

Legal experts note that the ruling may reduce the exposure of U.S. companies to lawsuits tied to foreign human rights claims but also underscores ongoing debates about the proper balance between judicial authority and political prerogative in addressing international abuses. The lead attorney for the Falun Gong plaintiffs stated that it was now up to Congress to decide whether victims of serious human rights violations involving U.S. corporations can seek accountability in American courts.