Doe I v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 73 F.4th 700

Background

Plaintiffs are Falun Gong practitioners (and relatives) who allege they were identified, detained, tortured, forced into labor, or disappeared by Chinese authorities using the "Golden Shield" surveillance system.
Plaintiffs allege Cisco Systems (headquartered in San Jose) designed, sold, customized, manufactured components for, and provided ongoing maintenance/training for Golden Shield components and that some of that work was done from Cisco’s U.S. offices.
Plaintiffs allege Cisco’s work enabled Chinese Communist Party and Ministry of Public Security efforts (including Office 610) to identify and target Falun Gong adherents, and that information from the system was used in torture and forced conversion sessions.
Procedurally: plaintiffs sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA); the district court dismissed; the Ninth Circuit reviews a 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo and accepts complaint allegations as true for present purposes.
The panel reaffirms that aiding-and-abetting liability is cognizable under the ATS, applies an international-law standard (actus reus + mens rea), holds Cisco plausibly liable under the ATS (corporate defendant), declines ATS domestic-application against the two Cisco executives, and holds TVPA liability can include aiding-and-abetting liability against individuals.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Is aiding-and-abetting a viable form of liability under the ATS?	ATS allows accomplice liability grounded in customary international law.	ATS does not authorize accomplice liability / courts should not recognize new ATS causes of action.	Yes: aiding-and-abetting is a norm of customary international law and cognizable under the ATS.
2) What is the international-law standard for aiding-and-abetting (actus reus and mens rea)?	Plaintiffs: actus reus = assistance with substantial effect; mens rea = at least knowledge (or purpose).	Defendants: push for a stricter purpose requirement (relying on Rome Statute interpretations) or other limits.	Actus reus = assistance that has a substantial effect on the commission of the crime; mens rea = knowing assistance (awareness that assistance would substantially facilitate violations).
3) Does the ATS apply domestically here (Kiobel extraterritoriality test)?	Much of Cisco’s design, manufacture, optimization, and support occurred in San Jose, so the conduct relevant to the ATS’s focus occurred in the U.S.	Alleged conduct is extraterritorial or mere corporate presence/decision-making in the U.S., which Kiobel/Nestle II say is insufficient.	Cisco (the corporation): plausible domestic conduct (design, manufacture, support) overcomes presumption and ATS may apply; Chambers and Cheung (individuals): allegations do not sufficiently connect their acts to the U.S., so ATS claims against them are dismissed.
4) Does the TVPA provide a private cause of action for aiding-and-abetting torture against individuals?	TVPA text, purpose, and Convention Against Torture background encompass liability for those who "subject" others to torture, including accomplices.	Defendants: TVPA liability limited to principals; Central Bank precedent disfavors judicially imposing accomplice liability absent clear congressional intent.	Yes: TVPA reaches those who aid and abet torture; plaintiff Charles Lee plausibly alleged Chambers and Cheung aided and abetted torture; TVPA claim against them is revived.

Key Cases Cited

Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) (ATS allows only narrow, well-defined norms of international law; two-step inquiry).
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013) (ATS does not apply extraterritorially; conduct must "touch and concern" the U.S.).
Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 138 S. Ct. 1386 (2018) (prudential concerns and foreign-relations consequences relevant under Sosa; limits on corporate defendants in that case).
Nestle USA, Inc. v. Doe, 141 S. Ct. 1931 (2021) (reiterates extraterritoriality limits; indicates domestic corporations can be defendants under the ATS).
Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980) (seminal decision recognizing ATS as a basis for international-law tort claims).
Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 654 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (discussed aiding-and-abetting standards under international law).
Nestle USA, Inc. v. Doe (Nestle I), 766 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2014) ( Ninth Circuit panel analyzing aiding-and-abetting under ATS).
Balintulo v. Ford Motor Co., 796 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2015) (designing technologies in the U.S. that facilitate foreign abuses can overcome Kiobel presumption).
Central Bank of Denver N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164 (1994) (no implied private aiding-and-abetting cause of action under Exchange Act; relied on by defendants on statutory-liability scope).
Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, 566 U.S. 449 (2012) (TVPA reaches officials who do not personally execute torture; recognizes vicarious/command-responsibility theories).