The question
Whether federal courts may create new causes of action for violations of international norms under the Alien Tort Statute.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe
What the Court decided
Federal courts may not recognize new causes of action for violations of international norms under the Alien Tort Statute. The Court held that judicial authority under Sosa's second step was narrow from the start, that ATS cases inherently implicate foreign policy, and that the power to create causes of action belongs to Congress. Because Congress is better positioned to weigh the policy tradeoffs of new international-law liability, courts may not fashion such rights of action themselves.
How the justices split
6-3The Court's opinion
Barrett, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
The Court held that courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms under the ATS. Two points drove the decision. First, judicial authority under Sosa's second step was narrow at the outset, and because ATS cases implicate foreign policy it is difficult to conclude that a new ATS cause of action would not carry detrimental foreign policy consequences. Second, the power to create causes of action belongs to Congress, which is better positioned than courts to evaluate the policy tradeoffs of creating liability.
Concurring in part and in the judgment
Jackson, joined by Kagan
Jackson concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing with the Court on some portions of its reasoning while disagreeing with others. The syllabus states the existence and joinership of this opinion but does not set out its specific reasoning.
Dissenting
Sotomayor, joined by Kagan, Jackson
Sotomayor dissented. Kagan and Jackson joined as to Parts I-III and V. The syllabus states the existence and joinership of this dissent but does not set out its specific reasoning.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held that courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms under the Alien Tort Statute.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court reasoned that judicial authority under Sosa's second step was narrow at the outset.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court reasoned that the power to create causes of action belongs to Congress, which is better positioned than courts to evaluate the policy tradeoffs of creating liability.
Source: syllabus, Held
Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Jackson filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Kagan; Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Kagan and Jackson as to Parts I-III and V.
Source: syllabus, lineup